Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 4

Christ Proclaimed in Pretense or Truth

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my situation has actually turned out to advance the gospel: The whole imperial guard and everyone else knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ, and most of the brothers and sisters, having confidence in the Lord because of my imprisonment, now more than ever dare to speak the word fearlessly. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. The latter do so from love because they know that I am placed here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, because they think they can cause trouble for me in my imprisonment. What is the result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:12-19).

Many would have looked at Paul’s situation and seen it as challenging, dire, and perhaps even hopeless. Paul would not have denied the challenge but chose to focus upon how it was all working to advance the Gospel and glorify God in Christ.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:2-11).

According to standard conventions of letter writing in the Greco-Roman world, Paul followed up his greeting and exordium with a narratio, or story, in Philippians 1:12-26. In the narratio, a letter’s author would explain the situation which has compelled him or her to write. Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians, the narratio focused primarily on what was going on with the Christians themselves; sometimes, as in Galatians, the narratio would involve both Paul’s situation as well as that of the Christians to whom he wrote. Yet Paul’s narratio to the Philippian Christians focused primarily on his own situation, as was made vividly apparent in Philippians 1:12-19.

Paul wanted to shift the narrative from what the Philippian Christians had imagined and/or heard: his situation was actually leading to the advancement of the Gospel (Philippians 1:12)! The praetorium, or imperial guard, and many others knew Paul was imprisoned for the sake of Jesus (Philippians 1:13); while a few want to suggest this could refer to a contingent of the imperial guard located in other parts of the Empire, this detail provides strong evidence by which we associate the Philippian letter with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Paul also made it known how most of his fellow Christians in Rome gained in confidence because of Paul’s imprisonment to feel comfortable in speaking the word more fearlessly (Philippians 1:14). This represented a very different situation than the one in which Paul would find himself in 2 Timothy 1:15, in which most Christians from Asia completely abandoned Paul while in Rome. It might be possible these represent the same situation, but it would seem highly doubtful, and would give more credence to the belief Paul experienced two Roman imprisonments at different times with very different outcomes. The days of 2 Timothy remain in the future at this point; Paul can maintain a more cheerful optimism with the Philippian Christians because his current plight was not as terrible as might be imagined.

Paul then focused on the preaching of the Gospel in Rome for a moment (Philippians 1:15-17). Some did preach the Gospel with sincerity and out of love, unashamed of Paul’s imprisonment for the Gospel; but some were preaching Jesus as Christ out of envy and rivalry, motivated by selfish ambition and gain, imagining they would cause Paul greater trouble in his imprisonment by doing so (Philippians 1:15-17).

Some seem to suggest these envious preachers were in Philippi, but it makes far more sense to understand these preachers as dwelling in Rome. Exactly what their message would sound like, and to what end, are not revealed. Perhaps they spoke of Jesus as the Christ, or King, in mocking or derisive ways, seeking to make fun of the message of Jesus at the expense of Christians. We have explicit evidence of this kind of mockery from a later source: a graffito has been discovered near the Palatine Hill in Rome, dated to around 200, of a donkey-like figure on a cross with the inscription, “Alexamenos worships his god.” Nevertheless, it would be hard to imagine how going about and mocking the Christian message would cause trouble for Paul in prison; by making Christianity seem more ridiculous, it might even make it seem more ludicrous and preposterous to keep Paul imprisoned. Therefore, it is more likely these “rivals” went about preaching Jesus as the Christ in ways which may have seemed sincere even though they actually were not. They would have tried to “thread the needle,” sufficiently bold to insinuate Paul was a danger to Roman law and order but in such a way to make sure the proclaimer did not end up in prison along with him.

It would not be hard to imagine how such a proclamation could cause Paul trouble in his imprisonment. Suetonius, a Roman historian, bore witness to how Claudius expelled the Jewish people from Rome because they were making disturbances at the instigation of “Chrestus” (Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25); this was probably the same decree to which Luke made reference in Acts 18:2, and many believe “Chrestus” is a distortion of “Christ,” and thus the Jewish people were all expelled because there had been some disputes going on regarding Jesus as the Christ. The same Suetonius related how Nero inflicted punishments on Christians around 64, and spoke of them as “given to a new and mischievous superstition” (ibid., Nero 16). We tend to believe Philippians was written only a couple of years before 62; nevertheless, the situation for Christians in Rome was manifestly quite precarious, and it would not have been challenging to stir up hostility toward Christian leaders by going out and speaking of Jesus as the real Lord and King.

One might expect Paul to respond to such proclaimers with hostility and prejudice. Instead, however, Paul rejoiced in how Jesus was proclaimed as the Christ, whether done in pretense or sincerity (Philippians 1:18). Paul remained confident all of these things would lead to his salvation through the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the supplications of the Philippian Christians (Philippians 1:19). We have good reason to believe Paul understood his “salvation” as deliverance from his imprisonment in this particular context; while his words might allow for a darker, more ominous conclusion, his further explanation in Philippians 1:20-26 would confirm the more optimistic scenario.

Paul began his narratio for the Philippian Christians as he did for good reasons. He remained under imprisonment in Rome, even if it were house arrest. As a prisoner, it would be assumed he had done something sufficiently wrong as to warrant being a prisoner. Presumption of being a criminal and possibly guilty of upsetting the laws and customs of the land remains a severe burden even in modern times; it would be all the more shameful and challenging in the eyes of good Roman citizens who earnestly desired to uphold their standing and the Roman way of life. The Philippian Christians would have good reason to imagine Paul was experiencing very difficult conditions for himself and a very hostile climate for the proclamation of the Gospel. Their association with him would have been seen as shameful and an embarrassment to their fellow Philippians.

Paul did not lie to the Philippian Christians, but he did focus on the positive. The Gospel was not being hindered by Paul’s imprisonment; he found ways to advance it, making sure the imperial guard and many in the imperial household well understood who he was and what he was about. Paul did not deny some people were proclaiming Jesus as the Christ in Rome with a view to cause Paul greater difficulty in prison. But Paul put it all in perspective: even if in pretense, Christ was being proclaimed, and Paul rejoiced in that. Even if it caused him greater trouble in prison, at least Jesus was being proclaimed.

We should always be on guard against shaming or toxic positivity: Paul did experience moments of distress and grief and spoke openly about them (e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). But Paul’s witness regarding his situation and the Gospel in Philippians 1:12-19 should well remind us to step back and look at the greater picture. We are often tempted toward dismay when we see and hear many preaching Jesus out of rivalry, envy, and selfish ambition. We scold and shame and point out how they are doing it wrong. While we do need to proclaim the Gospel in its fullness with all sincerity in love, we also should embody the spirit of Paul: whenever Jesus is proclaimed as the Christ, we should rejoice. Many lament regarding the condition and state of Christianity these days, but nevertheless, almost two thousand years after His life, death, and resurrection, people around the world still speak of Jesus as the Christ, and Christ is proclaimed in all kinds and sorts of ways, and in that we should rejoice.

When we look at our current predicament, we can always find reasons for discouragement and despair. We can always find ways things could be going better in the advancement of the Gospel. But we should well heed Paul’s example in Philippians 1:11-19 and find ways to see how God is working through His Spirit, and rejoice in it. May we work to advance the Gospel of Jesus in sincerity and truth and obtain life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christ Proclaimed in Pretense or Truth appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

It Is Finished

John the Evangelist narrated Jesus’ crucifixion in 14 verses.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).

Jesus had been handed over to the Jewish authorities and then to Pilate, who had Him scourged and humiliated to show how little of a threat he perceived Jesus to represent to Roman interests (John 18:1-19:4). But the Jewish authorities insisted on Jesus’ crucifixion, and Pilate, unwilling to endanger himself at all, handed Him over to their will (John 19:5-16a).

Jesus, along with two others (likely Barabbas’ compatriots, since they also were lestes, or “insurrectionists”; cf. Matthew 27:44), were led to Golgotha, the “Place of a Skull,” where they were crucified (John 19:16-18).

Crucifixion represents one of the most degrading, humiliating, and inhuman means of killing a person devised by humanity. While we generally associate crucifixion with the Romans, the earliest explicit examples we have of crucifixions come from the Persian Empire; many believe the practice existed in the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires before them. We should not imagine the Romans would just randomly decide to crucify people: it proved far more efficient and expedient to run common criminals through with a sword. Crucifixion was used to deliver a message to the rest of the inhabitants in a given area: if you dare do anything like what this person did, this will become your fate as well. To this end, crucifixion was most often reserved for political dissidents, revolutionaries, or anyone else whose behavior would undermine the very foundations of the Roman order.

Crucifixion represented a very public form of torture in slow death. The crucified would be nailed to the cross through his ankles and wrists (many common portrayals would suggest nailing through the palms, but such was physically impossible; the nails would strip out between two of the fingers the moment any weight would be placed upon them). From then on, every breath would be torture: breathing in would relieve weight and pain on the ankles but would cause great pain and suffering in the wrists, and breathing out would lead to relief in the wrists but agony in the ankles. Some might die from asphyxiation; many others would linger for days, eventually dying of dehydration or exposure. To this day, we continue to use crucifixion as the ultimate standard of agony and suffering: we describe the worst pain as excruciating, a word which derives from the Latin ex crucare, “from the cross.”

John spoke of Jesus carrying His own cross in John 19:17. The Synoptic Gospels spoke of Simon of Cyrene as compelled to carry His cross (e.g. Mark 15:21). Most reconcile the two by suggesting Jesus began carrying the cross and, after some time of exhaustion, it was carried by Simon of Cyrene. We do well to note first how Jesus would not have carried the whole cross, but only the patibulum, the crossbeam; the stipes, the upright beam, would have already been on location. Furthermore, we should note why John the Evangelist would reveal this detail: he continued to insist upon Jesus as the main character throughout all He endured.

Jesus was thus crucified on the cross intended for Barabbas and most likely between Barabbas’ two associates. John then set forth the inscription Pilate had written and fastened on Jesus’ cross: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews, written in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin (John 19:19-20). The Jewish religious authorities were quite annoyed at Pilate for this, insisting he write instead how Jesus said He was King of the Jews; Pilate defiantly told them he had written what he had written (John 19:21-22).

While Pilate seemingly did not want to have Jesus executed, he nevertheless never really took Jesus that seriously, as his behavior here attested. He had Jesus degraded in His scourging and the humiliation inflicted by his soldiers; now he was degrading and humiliating the Jewish people, well attested by the reaction of the Jewish authorities. He made sure everyone who passed by could read and understand: most of the Jewish people would have spoken Aramaic; Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire; Latin was the language of those from the west, primarily the administration and the soldiers, (and this is its only mention in all of Scripture). He intended to show the Jewish people what Rome thought of their King, and how Rome was more than ready and willing to treat anyone else with messianic aspirations in the same way. At the same time, in truth, Jesus was the King of the Jews, the Messiah of God; Pilate attested to Jesus accurately if not at all faithfully, and John the Evangelist fully intended this irony.

John the Evangelist then related how the soldiers divided some of Jesus’ clothes among themselves, but threw dice in order to determine who would obtain His seamless tunic (John 19:23). John then explicitly identified this behavior as fulfilling what had been prophesied and quoted Psalm 22:18. While John would not relate how Jesus would cry out the first verse of Psalm 22:1 as in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mark 15:34), he certainly understood Jesus as fulfilling the whole of Psalm 22:1-31 in what He endured on the cross and in the vindication of His resurrection. While Jesus might well have felt forsaken by God for that moment, to suggest Jesus actually was separated from the Father, even for a moment, would introduce intolerable heresy, as if the perichoretic relational unity within the Godhead could be fragmented! Jesus made appeal to the whole meaning of Psalm 22:1-31 by quoting Psalm 22:1; it gave voice to all He was experiencing. Even as His disciples had fled, and even though He was in agony, Jesus maintained confidence the Father was with Him (John 16:32).

John the Evangelist bore witness to those who saw Jesus suffer and die: His mother Mary, Mary’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene, and the “disciple whom [Jesus] loved” (John 19:25-26). Jesus made provision for His mother while on the cross, telling Mary to look upon the disciple as her son, and for the disciple to look upon Mary as his mother; from that time on that disciple took Mary into his home and provided for her (John 19:26-27).

Words fail when considering what the mother of Jesus must have thought and felt as she watched her Son suffer and die on the cross. She was last seen in John’s narrative back at the wedding in Cana in John 2:1-12; by this point His time had certainly come. Mary Magdalene is mentioned here for the first time in the Gospel of John.

Much has been made of the dedication and devotion of the women who followed Jesus, and for good reason. They were present with Him through the bitter end. They were able to be present in a way the male disciples were not, ironically, because of the strong patriarchal values of the time. The women were not seen in any, way, shape, or form as threatening. Almost everyone would have known they were Jesus’ disciples, but they were women; what could they really do? Had Simon Peter or Thomas been there, however, the Jewish authorities would have made sure the Romans erected a couple more crosses for them.

We associated the “disciple whom Jesus loved” in John 13:23 with John the Evangelist himself, whether the Apostle or simply the Evangelist, and we have all the more reason to maintain the association in John 19:26-27. So how could John have been present even though the other disciples were not? If John the Evangelist is not the Apostle, he seemed to have come from a place of some privilege in Jerusalem, and perhaps was thus insulated from any consequences (cf. John 18:15). Yet most agree John the Evangelist was a younger contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles: he might well have been but a teenager when these events took place around 30, and so would have been around 80 years of age around 95 when he would have completed his writings. As a teenager, the Jewish and Roman authorities would have not found him very threatening, either.

Jesus’ provision for His mother while on the cross proves compelling for many reasons. From this event we deduce Joseph has already died, leaving Mary a widow. As the eldest Son of His widowed mother, Jesus would have been expected to provide for her. We have good reason to wonder why He did not thus entrust her to any of His brothers; perhaps they remained in unbelief, or perhaps simply they were not present at this last moment. Regardless, Jesus had great confidence John was in a material position to care for His mother, and his willingness to thus serve his Lord proved truly commendable.

The time had come; all had been completed. Jesus, looking to fulfill Psalm 22:15 and Psalm 69:21, cried regarding His thirst; a sponge soaked in sour wine on a branch of hyssop was brought to His mouth (John 19:28-29). Having received it, He said tetelestai, “it is finished,” bowed His head, and gave up His spirit (John 19:30).

Wine was a staple in the ancient world, but only the wealthy enjoyed high quality wine; most people would have drunk a wine not terribly far off from vinegar, and this “sour wine” would have been all the more vinegary. Some imagine it was given to Him to increase His suffering, but it was most likely for the opposite reason. There would be reason to associate His thirst with the medical symptoms He was experiencing; but perhaps the thirst regarding which He spoke was not physical, but spiritual. The Source of the water of life was poured out for us.

John the Evangelist portrayed Jesus as in charge to the bitter end; He died when He freely gave up His spirit, since He had finished the work He had been given to do in His life, suffering, and death.

Yet there were, no doubt, biological and medical reasons for Jesus’ death as well. Romans did not generally scourge the people they were about to crucify: crucifixion was gruesome enough. Jesus suffered scourging first as Pilate’s attempted ploy to get Him released; since He was still condemned to death by crucifixion anyway, it meant Jesus suffered far beyond the “normal” crucifixion experience. But the scourging can help explain why Jesus died after only three hours on the cross: He was experiencing significant blood loss, and Jesus might well have experienced some kind of heart failure.

John the Evangelist explained how the day of Jesus’ crucifixion was the day of preparation for the Sabbath, and the Sabbath of an important festival no less; therefore, the Jewish authorities asked for Pilate to break the legs of the crucified so they might die more quickly and their bodies taken down lest they suffer the curse of having people hung upon a tree during the Passover (John 19:31; cf. Deuteronomy 21:22-23). The soldiers thus broke the legs of the two insurrectionists next to Jesus; they would not have been able to lift themselves up to breathe, and so would have died of asphyxiation soon afterward (John 19:32). They saw Jesus was dead, so they did not break His bones; instead, they pierced His side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out (John 19:33-34). John the Evangelist testified to the one who saw these things as speaking truly, and explicitly quoted Exodus 12:46/Numbers 9:12/Psalm 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10 as fulfilled at this moment.

The presence of blood and water together would have given indication Jesus was well and truly dead; perhaps the Roman soldier did so to assure His death as much as confirm it. The symbolism, however, can hardly be overstated: this was the only blood Jesus shed in His death, and to this day we generally speak of Jesus as shedding His blood on the cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28). Jesus had spoken of Himself as the living water, and as giving the Spirit as streams of water within a person (John 4:10, 14, 7:38-39); furthermore, Peter would later exhort everyone to be immersed in water in order to obtain remission of sins in the blood of Jesus in Acts 2:38. John would again appeal to the witness of the water and the blood in 1 John 5:6-8.

Events then proceeded quickly: the Sabbath would begin when the sun set, which would have taken place only a couple of hours after Jesus died. John the Evangelist introduced Joseph of Arimathea to his story: a disciple who remained in secret out of fear of the Jewish leaders, but now sufficiently emboldened (or shamed) into asking Pilate for Jesus’ body (John 19:38). Nicodemus, last seen giving tepid questioning of his fellow Pharisees regarding Jesus in John 7:50-51, returned to the narrative, this time bearing seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes (John 19:39). Together they took Jesus’ body, wrapped it according to standard conventions, packed it full of the aloes and myrrh and other aromatic spices, and buried it in Joseph’s new tomb in the garden near where He had been crucified (John 19:40-42).

While myrrh and aloes were not quite as precious and rare as the pure nard of John 12:3-8, they were not far off; Nicodemus demonstrated not a little contrition by the lavish expense which He thus invested in Jesus’ body. Nicodemus brought it and used it fully expecting Jesus’ body to decompose; such aloes and spices were intended to cover the stench of decomposition. To a similar end, Joseph of Arimathea felt comfortable allowing Jesus’ body to be placed in his own tomb. He was following standard Second Temple Jewish burial customs of the first century. Land was at a premium; therefore, burial places would be dug into the rocks and hills, featuring a bier and perhaps shelves and the like. The recently deceased would be laid upon the bier; after a year or so, the family would return and gather the bones of the decomposed body and place them in a bone box, or ossuary, which would then be placed on the shelves or elsewhere in the family crypt.

After all this, all involved rested according to the commandment. We have no reason to think Pilate would have given the events of the day much more thought. The Jewish authorities would have felt justified and would have wanted to move on and dedicate themselves to the Passover. We can only imagine what the disciples in the upper room were thinking and saying to one another, or what was going through the minds of Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, or others who had hoped in Jesus. The disappointment would have been palpable. They had thought Jesus was the Christ, the One who would redeem Israel. And yet now He had been degraded, humiliated, and executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities. So much promise, and all seemingly wasted.

If this were the end of the story, it would have remained a terrible and immoral injustice. Yet, as John the Evangelist has already begun to prepare for us to perceive and understand, the story is not over. All would rest according to the commandment. Afterward, nothing would be the same.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post It Is Finished appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Avoiding Spiritual Complacency

We all know someone who thinks that the world revolves around them. Woe to the woman who meets the man who thinks he is God’s gift to women and is hideous! Woe to the man at work who is forced to work with the guy who believes the office could not continue without him! We understand that this is arrogance, and that this is not right, but how did these people get to this point? Some may be delusional, but by in large this arrogance is born from a feeling of complacency.

Complacency is defined by Webster as “self-satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.” This attitude is clearly prevalent in many people and even groups of people today. Could we not use the United States as an example, who is the lone superpower of the world yet watched helplessly as thousands of its own died because of a small group of terrorists? Complacency is a great danger, for disappointment and suffering almost inevitably come with it.

When we examine the Scriptures, we see that one of the chief attitudes that have led to apostasy from God has been complacency. Complacent attitudes have even led to the origin of sin on Earth, with Eve being tempted in the Garden by Satan (Genesis 3:3-7). God had given her and Adam anything they would need, leading no doubt to a feeling of complacency. And who was there to exploit that complacency? Satan!

The history of Israel is full of examples of complacent attitudes and the inevitable apostasy to follow. When all was well in Israel, the people became complacent, and were easily led astray to follow other gods (e.g. Judges 2:11-23). Suffering came about, and they would turn back to God, who would deliver them. Peace returned, and so did complacency. This is the story of the people during the time of the Judges, but really is the story of the whole history of Israel. The same complacency set in under the kingdom of Israel, who forsook God to follow the Baals, even with the prophets Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, and others (cf. especially 1 Kings 18:1-19:18). Judah also would eventually follow in the same path (cf. 2 Kings 21:1-18). The wrath of God was upon them for their activity, and both nations were led into exile.

With Jesus’ arrival, we would hope that attitudes would change. Alas, this is not the case. The church at Corinth was rebuked severely by Paul for not chastising a member living in an incestuous relationship: in fact, the Corinthians even boasted in this (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)! Complacency led to the introduction and even the embracing of sin and evil among God’s people!

This attitude of complacency is even more prevalent later on in the history of the church, for it is seen in two churches of the Revelation: Ephesus and Laodicea. The church in Ephesus, while commended for their adherence to truth and rebuke of false doctrine, had “left their first love” (Revelation 2:4). We can see how easy it would be to fall into this complacency, for we can see that the Ephesians felt comfortable knowing that they had fought for the truth and maintained it, yet meanwhile they lost their first love. How grievous it is to win truth and lose Jesus!

The church in Laodicea was even more troubled. Let us read what Christ says to it in Revelation 3:14-22:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God, says this: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say,
‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’
and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Let us hear indeed! The church exhibits a clear complacency: “we have need of nothing,” they say, yet it is this church that lacks a single positive comment from its Shepherd. The error of complacency is very great. How, then, shall we avoid complacency in spiritual things?

Remember who you’re fighting against.

Satan is always present; therefore, remember the words of Peter in 1 Peter 5:8:

Be of sober spirit; be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Satan can and most certainly will attack when you are not aware of your own deficiencies.

Examine yourself.

Paul writes about this to the church in Corinth, 2 Corinthians 13:5:

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?

Self-examination spiritually is one of the best ways to prevent complacency, as long as the examination is honest. Do not attempt to delude yourself into thinking that a deficiency of yours is not important or non-existent. You can fool yourself, but you cannot fool either God or Satan. The latter will tempt you, and then you must answer to the former. Woe to the one who is tempted and falls due to complacency!

Immerse yourself in spiritual things.

Paul exhorted the following in Philippians 3:12-14:

Not that I have already attained this – that is, I have not already been perfected – but I strive to lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself to have attained this. Instead I am single-minded: Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out for the things that are ahead, with this goal in mind, I strive toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

The spiritual path of a man can be summed up in the following: if you’re not striving upward, you’re falling away. We cannot stop following Jesus, for we either continue to walk the narrow way or fall back into eventual apostasy. Why is this? Complacency! The church in Laodicea felt that it no longer needed to strive, for they had need of nothing, they said. What was Jesus’ response? Remember this, and always be diligent to be presented approved to God, fervent in prayer, ever active in association with God in Christ through the Spirit and among the people of God.

It would take a hard rejection for “God’s gift to women” to recognize his deplorable nature. It takes a pink slip for the one who believes the office cannot function without him to put him back into place. It took 5,000 deaths for America to realize that it is not impregnable. God had to deliver the Jewish people into the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians for them to realize their own fault, and even after all of this, many rejected the Messiah, leading to their own destruction in 70 CE. It took a scathing rebuke by Paul for the church in Corinth to realize its error in fellowshipping with an immoral man, and we do not know what if anything it would take the Ephesians to turn back to their first love and the Laodiceans to repent. What will it take for you to recognize your complacency, and to make your life right with God? We urge you to heed the words of Paul in Acts 17:30-31:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Avoiding Spiritual Complacency appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel as News

There are good reasons why we tend to remember where we were when we heard “the news.”

In times past, “the news” might have been regarding the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the assassination of John F. Kennedy. These days, “the news” might have more to do with the Challenger disaster or 9/11.

“The news” might involve more personal matters. People often remember when they received the news they were accepted into their dream school, got the job, received word they were expecting a child, or some notable achievement of their child. Or, in a darker vein, people sometimes remember where they were when they found out they, or a loved one, were diagnosed with a chronic or terminal illness, or heard of the passing of someone they loved.

Some people remember quite vividly when they first heard the good news regarding the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Many others cannot, for they have heard this good news often and for a very long time.

Not for nothing was the message regarding all God accomplished in Jesus called the evangelion, or “good news.” Jesus began speaking of the message as the good news, and the Evangelists and Apostles all followed in turn (Matthew 4:23, 26:13, Mark 1:1, Luke 20:1, Romans 1:9, 1 Peter 1:12, 1 John 1:5).

“The news” as we understand it, in terms of the published media, is only a few centuries old, but the desire, drive, and imperative of distributing information has existed as long as humanity. What “the news” would have looked like in the ancient world can be perceived well in Nahum 1:15, in which a messenger known as a herald would have gone from town to town proclaiming the major events regarding which the authorities would have wanted people to know. More local, communal “news” has always been distributed by means of gossip and busybodies, condemnation of the practice notwithstanding (e.g. Proverbs 16:28, 18:8, 2 Corinthians 12:20). And so we can understand why Jesus would have characterized the message of all God was accomplishing in Him through the Spirit as news, and why He wanted the message to be widely distributed and proclaimed throughout the world.

In the modern world, we have made much regarding the quest for “objectivity” in the accumulation and distribution of the news. We would like to think the news can come to us as relatively unfiltered true information regarding what is going on in the world, and from those reports we can make our own judgments. And yet no one can prove entirely objective: even if one attempts to be open-minded and open to multiple forms of understanding about events, the selection of which events are considered newsworthy, the ways in which they are reported, and even the framework in which they are reported will all reflect some level of bias. Such bias exists even with the best of intentions; and many have understood how profit and power can be found in very deliberately distorting and mischaracterizing events and packaging it as “news.” In this way “news” often proves to be “propaganda,” and has all too often succeeded in its designs. Therefore, not all “news” is “good news,” or, for that matter, even really “news.” There have been people out there proclaiming distorted forms of the message of what God accomplished in Christ for about as long as the message has been proclaimed in its apostolic simplicity and sincerity, and generally with a view to increase the standing and/or wealth of the proclaimer or to accommodate the message of Jesus to a given culture or heritage (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-4, 6:3-10, 2 Peter 2:1-20, Jude 1:3-16).

Speaking of the message of what God accomplished in Christ as “good news” proved subversive from the beginning. The life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, was not the only message proclaimed in the first century Roman world as the evangelion, or “good news.” Roman Emperors made sure to send out plenty of heralds proclaiming the evangelion of Rome, what they deemed as the “good news” of the gods’ favor upon the Senate and People of Rome and their designs, manifest in the “Peace of Rome” and all its attendant munificence in terms of public infrastructure and security provided by the Romans to all of their subjects. The oppressive taxation and ruthless suppression of most dissent was, of course, not proclaimed so loudly by those same heralds.

Therefore, when the Apostles and later believers of Jesus went about proclaiming the “good news” of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, they were casting aspersions upon the claims and pretensions of the Roman Emperors. If Jesus is the Son of God, Caesar is not; if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar’s rule is far more circumscribed than he would appreciate. To this end, the “good news” about what God has accomplished in Jesus can never cease to be political, and those who truly proclaim it and adhere to it will often be seen with suspicion by the earthly authorities, no matter how outwardly they seem to conform to the laws of the land (cf. 1 Peter 2:10-18).

Ultimately, the power of news has very little to do with the words of the message itself, and even less with the messenger. The power of news has always come from how the information encoded in the news reflects and manifests the reality behind it, and particularly how the reality of what is proclaimed will transform the life of the one who has heard it.

News, therefore, is only as good as it accurately and honestly reflects reality. Our understanding of this crucial principle can be found in its betrayal: we do not appreciate pranks featuring the proclamation of “news” which is not really the case. When the truth of the matter is made known, we feel betrayed and deceived, and our trust in the integrity of the messenger has been compromised. And so, if Jesus never really lived, died, was raised, and/or ascended, then He would not be Lord, and will not return again, and those of us who have put our trust in Jesus have lived a lie and have deceived others (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19). The Gospel of Jesus can only be good news if it accurately reflects reality, and Jesus well and truly lived, died, was raised, ascended, is Lord, and will return again soon.

We do well to think again regarding the power of the news as we considered at the beginning. The news about the bombing of Pearl Harbor was transformative, for instance, because Americans knew it meant going to war with Japan and Germany. In our personal lives, to receive the news one is expecting a child means a significant transformation into becoming a parent or becoming the parent of an additional child; to find out one has a chronic or terminal illness leads to significant changes in how one will live his or her life. When we are informed of the passing of someone we love, we begin the grief process: we will hopefully reach a point at which our loved ones live on in our memory and we can honor them well and appropriately, but life on this earth without them will not be exactly like it was while they were still here with us.

Above all things, such is why Jesus characterized the message of what God accomplished in Him as the “good news”: Jesus was actually Emmanuel, God in the flesh, born of the Virgin Mary around 5 or 4 BCE in the days of Herod “the Great”, king of the Jews, and Augustus Caesar; He actually lived, doing good for all; He suffered and was crucified, even though an innocent man, under Pontius Pilate in the days of Tiberius Caesar; on the third day God raised Him from the dead so death no longer had power over Him, and the Apostles bore witness to Jesus as alive after having died; forty days later He ascended to the Father, who made Him both Lord and Christ, and Jesus actually reigns from heaven to this day (cf. Matthew 1:1-Acts 2:41). Jesus also promised He would return one day, and on that day, all would be judged and raised from the dead (cf. John 5:28-29, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58).

The Gospel has the “power of salvation”, as Paul testified in Romans 1:16, not because of the words written on a page, nor because of how eloquently an evangelist might proclaim them. The Gospel has the power of salvation because God has actually done, is doing, and will do all the things proclaimed in the Gospel in Christ through the Spirit. The Gospel is the power of salvation because those who obey the Gospel by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, confessing His name, repenting of their poor behavior and sins, submit to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and seek to endure to the end are baptized into the body of Christ in the Spirit, given the Spirit of God, are actually reconciled to God through Christ, and are welcomed, received, and loved as part of the people of God in Christ (cf. Romans 8:1-17, 1 Corinthians 12:23, Ephesians 2:1-4:3). If any of these things were not actually true in reality, the Gospel would not really be the good news it is purported to be, and would not have the power Paul claimed for it.

Furthermore, the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation because those who hear it should prove utterly transformed by their exposure to the message and, by extension, to the statement of reality reflected within the Gospel. When a person is informed Jesus is Lord, they will, by necessity, have to concede to it or reject it. If they reject it, their lives may seem otherwise the same, but they will be held accountable by Jesus for having rejected Him (cf. Romans 2:5-11). But if they come to recognize Jesus is Lord, and God has made Him Lord and Christ because He lived, suffered, and died, and He will return soon to judge everyone, by necessity they will have to recognize those whom they had formerly believed to have been their lords really are not. They will now have to submit to Jesus and His ways. They will have to entrust themselves to Him and live according to His standards.

And so, we can understand why many people can remember when they first heard the good news of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Their lives would never be the same again. But the transformation was not merely because they heard someone speak words; the desired transformation does not involve becoming obsessed over the words themselves, or, perhaps even worse, with the messenger of the words. Their lives were transformed because they accepted the truth of the reality behind those words. Jesus actually did all those things the Gospels said He did. God really did raise Jesus from the dead. Jesus actually has all power and authority right now. Jesus will certainly return one day. The Gospel is good news because it directs us to a right understanding of who God is and what He has accomplished in Jesus, and its power unto salvation lay in our willingness to accept its truth and therefore actually, really obey the Gospel, put our trust in Jesus Christ as Lord, obtain the Spirit of God from Him and live and walk in His ways, so that we might share in the actual, substantive resurrection of life and enjoy eternal life in Him always. May we heed the Gospel as the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, put our trust in Jesus Himself, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel as News appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Behold, the Man!

“Behold, the man!” A pathetic sight indeed. And yet, indeed, He was and is the man: the Son of Man, God in the flesh, fulfilling all which was written regarding Him.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).

The religious authorities’ plot against Jesus was being fulfilled: they had Him arrested and examined by Annas and Caiaphas (John 18:1-26). They would then proceed to bring Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor (John 18:27).

Pontius Pilate served as the governor of Judea from around 26-36. The role was not glorious, and Pilate would have most likely resented it: there was very little opportunity for glory, and a lot of opportunity for difficulty and failure. The population was restive and hostile against the Romans and was not easily placated. What sources we do have for Pilate align with what we can find in the four Gospels: a Roman administrator who was not a big fan of the Jewish people and their authorities, and one who would put his own craven interests before anything resembling righteousness and truth.

The religious authorities stood outside of Pilate’s residence so they might not be defiled and be unable to observe the Passover later that evening (John 18:27). The challenges reconciling the Gospel narratives in terms of when the Passover took place relative to Jesus’ death are well-attested. But we do well, here and throughout this passage, to note the intended irony: these men would not enter Pilate’s house and thus be defiled, yet seem to have no difficulty with the blood of Jesus they were bringing upon their hands.

Pilate came out and asked them what Jesus had done; they responded how they would not have brought Him if He were not a criminal (John 18:28-29). The religious authorities likely maintained this vagary because Jesus’ “crimes” were a matter of internal Jewish disputes, of little concern to the Romans; but we can perceive in their words that prejudice and propaganda which authorities often love to use against their opponents, denouncing them in general terms as criminals without presenting the details.

Pilate, who was not born the day before and perceived all this, told them to go and judge Him by their own law; they responded they did not have the authority to put anyone to death, and John the Evangelist pointed out how this fulfilled the word Jesus had spoken regarding the nature of His death (John 18:31-32). As far as we can tell, the authorities speak accurately: capital punishment had to be approved by the Roman authority. Stephen’s execution in Acts 7:1-58, as well as Josephus’ attestation of the assassination of James the Just (the Lord’s brother; Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1), seem to represent extrajudicial killings. But this time the religious authorities want to have the authorization and blessing of the Roman authority for what they want to do, and it would work to fulfill the Scripture in Psalm 2:1-12.

Pilate went back within his residence and summoned Jesus, and they would have their first discourse in John 18:33-38a. Pilate asked Him if He were the king of the Jewish people; Jesus asked in response whether he was asking on his own or because of the testimony of others (John 18:33-34). Pilate responded brusquely: was he a Jewish person? Jesus’ own people and religious authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate; Pilate wanted to know why (John 18:35). Jesus confessed His Kingdom as “not from this world,” and the reaction of His disciples, whom He called His servants before Pilate, was the proof: if His Kingdom were of this world, they would be fighting to keep Him from thus being handed over, and they were not (John 18:36). From this Pilate understood Jesus as declaring Himself a King; Jesus affirmed it, and confessed to Pilate how He came into the world to bear witness to the truth, and those who belong to the truth listen to His voice (John 18:37). In response, Pilate asked, more mockingly, sarcastically, or facetiously than honestly, “what is truth?” (John 18:38a).

Pilate was looking for some kind of clear answer regarding who Jesus was claiming to be in order to make an efficient decision; Jesus instead bore witness to His purpose. Many have distorted what Jesus intended in John 18:36, imagining Jesus was claiming His Kingdom was entirely “spiritual” and had little to nothing to do with the world, no doubt based upon the unfortunate translation choice “of” for Greek ek in many translations. We better understand Jesus as saying His Kingdom was not “from” this world, and we see this well demonstrated in the evidence He supplied: His disciples were not fighting for Him to be delivered from His present distress.

Let none be deceived: Jesus’ Kingdom is not a worldly kingdom. It is not like the Davidic Israelite Empire, the Roman Empire, or the United States of America. There can be no such thing as a “Christian nation,” for if such were Jesus’ intent, He would have established one Himself, and He did quite the opposite. Jesus’ Kingdom, like Jesus, is from above, is a stranger to the ways of the creation in its corruption, and will be viewed dismissively or with hostility from many who benefit from the corruption within the creation. But just because the Kingdom of God in Christ is not from this world does not mean it has nothing to do with this world. Jesus’ prayer was for the will of the Father to be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). Christians should bring the values of the Kingdom of God in Christ to bear in all their relationships (e.g. Ephesians 5:21-6:9). In one sense, therefore, Jesus as a King was no real threat to the Romans: He was not going to start an insurrection or rebellion against the Roman Empire. And yet the Kingdom of God in Christ would, in time, overrun and transform the Roman Empire.

Jesus was not trying to make a disciple out of Pilate; by saying those who belong to the truth hear Jesus’ voice, He not so subtly indicted the religious authorities, and Pilate himself, as not in alignment with the truth (John 18:37). Pilate’s question of “what is truth” was not uttered as a sincere quest for insight (John 18:38), but perhaps represented a sardonic rhetorical question.

We can only imagine what Pilate really thought of Jesus, but we can tell Pilate was not convinced He was any kind of significant threat. He announced to the Jewish authorities how he could find no basis for an accusation against Jesus; since they had a custom by which the Romans would release a prisoner during the Passover, Pilate asked if they wanted him to release the “King of the Jews” (John 18:38-39). They instead asked for Barabbas, whom John identified as a lestes, an insurrectionist (John 18:40).

In John’s accounting of the events, the Jewish authorities were the ones who requested the release of Barabbas as opposed to Jesus; the people, instigated by the same authorities, cry out for Barabbas in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:6-11, etc.). In this way John has presented for us a pivotal moment which would define the next generation. The irony is palpable and would be remarked upon by Peter: they rejected the Author of Life and asked for a murderer to be granted to them (Acts 3:14-15). Furthermore, at this moment, they rejected the way of deliverance and salvation which God was offering them, the way of Jesus their Messiah, and instead chose a “Messiah” of their own desire: an insurrectionist. During the First Jewish War of 66-70, insurrectionists in the mold of Barabbas would take over the Jewish revolt, would be responsible for all kinds of death and devastation on account of their internal feuds, and would oversee the complete defeat of the Jewish people and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Simon bar-Kokhba would arise in 132 and be hailed as the “Messiah” who would defeat the Romans, but was also defeated by the Romans in the Second Jewish War of 132-136, after which the Romans renamed Judea as Palaestina, Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, and built a Temple to Zeus on the Temple Mount. All of this was presaged by this dramatic moment in 30 when the Jewish authorities chose the way of Barabbas over the way of Jesus.

Pilate, frustrated in this attempt to exonerate Jesus, tried a different method in John 19:1-5. He commanded Jesus to be scourged, or flogged (John 19:1); the Roman soldiers put a crown of thorns and a purple robe on Him, and offered Him mock devotion and honor, “hailing” the “King of the Jews,” striking Him on His face (John 19:2-3). After this, Pilate brought Jesus out before the Jewish leaders to provide evidence of how Pilate was convinced there was no basis for an accusation against Him: Pilate displayed the beaten, bloodied, humiliated Jesus wearing the purple robe and crown of thorns before them all, declaring, “behold, the man” (John 19:4-5).

Scourging, or flogging, was a common Roman punishment generally used to extract confessions or information, or just to remind everyone who was boss. It featured the use of a leather whip, sometimes with iron balls attached within the flayed thong to cause extra pain and suffering. A Roman soldier would systematically whip the victim down the back, turning the skin of the back into ribbons. The soldiers intended to further mock and humiliate Jesus with the reed, purple robe, and crown of thorns. The crown of thorns would cause significant bleeding once it was pressed down onto Jesus’ head.

It was not a customary practice for Romans to scourge people they were about to crucify; crucifixion was enough of a degrading and humiliating punishment. Pilate had Jesus scourged and humiliated in order to demonstrate the power of Roman authority over Him and to turn Him into a degraded spectacle before the Jewish authorities and people: this Man is your king? You want me to have this Man crucified, this bloodied, degraded spectacle before you? You really think this Man is a threat to us?

The Jewish authorities indeed beheld the Man, and continued to insist on His crucifixion (John 19:6). Pilate continued to resist, insisting they go and crucify Him, for Pilate found no basis on which to do so himself (John 19:7). The Jewish authorities declared they had a law demanding the execution of such a Man since He claimed to be the Son of God (John 19:8).

The claim of Jesus as the Son of God rattled Pilate for a moment; he brought Jesus back in and asked Him from where He had come, but Jesus gave him no answer (John 19:8-9). While John did not speak of it, Matthew testified to Pilate’s wife having warned Pilate regarding Jesus, for she had suffered in a dream because of Him (Matthew 27:19); Pilate would have been sufficiently superstitious as to not want to incur the wrath of the gods, which again is all the more ironic since he would soon be condemning the Son of the true and living God to death!

Pilate did not take Jesus’ silence well, and upped the ante, asking whether Jesus knew Pilate had the power to release Him or have Him executed (John 19:10). But Jesus would not countenance such power games: He declared Pilate would have no power unless it was given to him from above, but granted those who handed Jesus over to him had the greater sin (John 19:11).

Pilate did not want anything more to do with Jesus of Nazareth and wanted to release Him (John 19:12). Perhaps perceiving as much, the Jewish authorities themselves upped the ante, declaring Pilate was no friend of Caesar if he released a Man claiming to be the King of the Jews (John 19:12).

This gamesmanship worked: Pilate shifted the scene to Gabbatha, the “Stone Pavement,” to render official judgment (John 19:13). John related how it was the sixth hour, or noon, of the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14). Pilate presented Jesus before them, declaring Him their king; the Jewish leaders wanted Him to be taken away and crucified (John 19:15). Pilate asked them if they wanted him to crucify their king, and then they made their final declaration: they had no king but Caesar (John 19:16). After this, Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified (John 19:17a).

In John’s telling of the story, Pontius Pilate really wanted no part or share in having Jesus killed, until the Jewish authorities insinuated not having Jesus killed would be a demonstration of disloyalty to Caesar. Saving Jesus of Nazareth was not worth a possibly damning report reaching Tiberius. Pilate therefore handed Jesus over to the Jewish authorities to do according to their own desires.

The confession of the Jewish authorities was quite damning and ironic. Sure, they were speaking in sycophantic ways when they declared Caesar alone to be their king; likely not one of them really or truly believed it, but said it in order to obtain their desires and seem more loyal to Caesar at that particular moment than the Roman governor himself. Yet God would not have been fooled or pleased. God should have been their king first and foremost. In confessing Caesar alone as their king, the Jewish authorities, even if only in pretense, abandoned God. As a result, within a generation, God would abandon the Jewish authorities to the wrath of their king, and the Romans would indeed come and take away their state and their temple. They crucified their King, and they would incur judgment for doing so.

We have not shied away from what John the Evangelist has made known regarding how Jesus of Nazareth was betrayed, arrested, and condemned to be crucified. While the Roman authority bore the responsibility of making the final decision, and for mocking and deriding the Lord of the universe, as Jesus Himself said, the Jewish authorities maintained the greater sin for having delivered Jesus over to them. If it were not for the decisions of the Jewish authorities, Jesus of Nazareth would not have been crucified. As Jesus Himself testified, judgment would come against the Jewish nation by the hands of those Romans in the First and Second Jewish Wars of 66-70 and 132-136: after these days of YHWH against Israel, they have never since had a temple, and have never since been able to observe the Law of Moses as written. “Rabbinic Judaism,” which grew and developed out of these existential crises, is as innovative and divergent from Second Temple Judaism and what was explicitly written in the Torah as was Christianity.

Unfortunately, ever since, many have professed to follow Jesus as the Christ and yet have inflicted violence and suffering upon the Jewish people in the name of Jesus. Such was never God’s intent for Israel; He would have them recognize Jesus’ lordship and be saved (cf. Romans 11:1-36). We bitterly confess and lament the sinful genocides committed against the Jewish people over the past 1700 years in the name of Jesus. Such were abominable and shameful.

As Christians, we must find a way to both condemn all the sinful actions committed against Jewish people while upholding what the Gospels teach regarding how the Jewish religious authorities in 30 stirred up the Jewish people to condemn Jesus, a Second Temple Jewish man from Nazareth, to death. We should also give significant meditation, and self-introspection, regarding how that could have happened, and to consider the various ways in which those who profess to follow Jesus might be the first ones ready to crucify Him afresh for having called into question many of their sacred beliefs and practices.

Almost two months after these events, Simon Peter would tell the Israelites all these things took place according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23). Later testimony would make it known how Jesus thus suffered for all of our sins, and therefore we all have some share in responsibility for what He endured (Hebrews 7:27). To this end, we must all behold the Man. We see the Man in His degradation, humiliation, and suffering, bleeding all over the place, a King crowned with thorns and a pathetic sight before the people. And yet He is a King; the crown of thorns was His crown; and through His degradation, humiliation, and suffering, He overcame the power of evil and was atoning for our sins. May we all behold the Man, mourn and weep for our complicity in all He endured because of our sin, and yet find life in Him and follow Him no matter what we might have to endure!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Behold, the Man! appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

From Mount Hor to the Plains of Moab

Condemnation of a whole generation, including its leaders, and the death of its first high priest: Israel had reached the nadir of its wilderness wanderings. Their predicament would soon brighten.

Israel’s odyssey in the wilderness provided the Hebrew name for the Book of Numbers: bemidbar. The book had begun in the first year in the wilderness with much promise at Mount Sinai: Israel faithfully prepared itself, their camp, and the Tabernacle for their military adventure into Canaan in Numbers 1:1-10:10 (ca. 1450 or 1250 BCE, depending on one’s view of the exodus). But in the second year, from Sinai to Kadesh, Israel would rebel time and time again throughout Numbers 10:11-19:22, and the entire generation was consigned to death in the wilderness. After the better part of forty years of wandering in the desert wastes of Arabia, Israel returned to Kadesh, where Miriam would die, and Aaron and Moses would be condemned for not making the name of YHWH holy among the people (Numbers 20:1-13). Israel began its movement toward the land of Canaan: they would have to go around Edom, Aaron would die at Mount Hor, and his son Eleazar would succeed him as high priest (Numbers 20:14-29).

At some point around this time in the narrative, a Canaanite leader of Arad brought his army against Israel, fought them, and took some Israelites as prisoners (Numbers 21:1). Israel vowed to YHWH they would devote their cities to destruction if they were delivered into their hands; YHWH delivered them up and they destroyed them and their cities, naming the place Hormah (Numbers 21:2-3).

We do well to note how this experience represents a significant reversal from the events of Numbers 14:40-45: earlier Israel, in its attempt at “repentance” for rebelling against YHWH in the matter of the spies, went up into the land around this area, and were attacked as far as Hormah. This time, the Israelites were themselves attacked; they sought YHWH and made their vows to Him; they were granted success and fulfilled their vows.

After these things the Israelites traveled from Mount Hor around the land of Edom, and so likely southeast near the Gulf of Aqaba (Numbers 21:4). While traveling, the people again spoke against God and Moses, asking why they were brought up from Egypt to die in the wilderness without bread or water, and they were tired of the manna (Numbers 21:5). YHWH sent “fiery serpents,” or venomous snakes, among the people and many died; “fiery” was an apt description of the experience of envenomation (Numbers 21:6).

This would seem to be a standard Israelite experience in the wilderness and an indication not much had changed. But then the people came to Moses and confessed their sins, and asked Moses to pray to YHWH to take the snakes away from them (Numbers 21:7). Moses thus prayed for them. YHWH would not take the snakes away, but He did command Moses to make a copper or bronze snake and set it on a pole, and anyone who looked at the pole after getting bitten would live, and Moses did so (Numbers 21:8-9).

“Bronze” or “copper” snake in Hebrew seems to feature a play on words (nehash nehoshet), but also represents a common motif throughout the ancient Near Eastern world. Snakes were often associated with magic, healing, and defense; to this day, the caduceus and the Rod of Aesculapius feature staffs and snakes and are signs used to represent medicine. We should not be surprised to discover this copper/bronze serpent would be named Nehushtan and incense would be offered to it in later days, leading Hezekiah king of Judah to destroy it around 700 BCE (2 Kings 18:4).

We have to make sense of how the God who commanded Israel to make no graven image of any animal also told Moses to make a copper or bronze snake for Israel to look upon and be healed (Exodus 20:4, Numbers 21:8). This experience would become a type for what God would accomplish in Jesus: Jesus would refer to Numbers 21:5-9 in John 3:13-15, making a parallel between Israel finding healing by looking up to the uplifted serpent and Israel, and all people, finding salvation by looking up to the uplifted Son of Man.

The journey of Israel from the road to the Red Sea to near Mount Pisgah in Moab was detailed in Numbers 20:10-20, a predominantly northern journey. Moses, or perhaps a later editor, made reference to the Book of the Wars of YHWH when describing the Moabite-Ammonite borderlands in which Israel encamped in Numbers 21:13-15. This is the only reference to the Book of the Wars of YHWH in the Bible, and we know nothing else about it; beyond the short poetic description found in Numbers 21:14-15, none of the rest of its contents have been preserved, and anything we might say about it would prove speculative. Its citation does bear witness to the existence of other sources regarding Israel’s origins beyond what has been preserved in the Torah/Pentateuch. This section also preserves a song Israel composed celebrating YHWH opening the well of Beer in Numbers 21:16-18.

Israel then made appeal to Sihon king of the Amorites to allow them to pass through his land (Numbers 21:21-22). Sihon not only did not allow Israel to do so, but also gathered his forces and fought against Israel at Jahaz (Numbers 21:23). Sihon chose foolishly: the Israelites defeated him and took possession of Sihon’s land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, and Israel would settle in the cities and villages of the Amorites, especially Heshbon, Sihon’s capital (Numbers 21:24-25). Moses, or a later editor, felt compelled to explain how Sihon had come into possession of that land, since it was formerly Moabite territory; a poem from “those who speak in proverbs” was recorded, likely an Amorite war taunt, bearing witness to Sihon’s victory over Moab in Numbers 21:26-30.

Israel then expanded within the Amorite land of the Transjordan: they spied out and conquered Jaazer and dispossessed the Amorites who lived there (Numbers 21:31-32). Israel proceeded up the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan and his army met Israel and fought against them at Edrei; YHWH promised Moses He would deliver them into the hands of the Israelites to do what was done unto Sihon, and it was done, and no survivors remained (Numbers 21:33-35).

The Amorites represented a Bronze Age people who spoke a Northwest Semitic language. In the wake of the collapse of the Akkadian Empire and the long-term effects of the 4.2 Kiloyear Event, the Amorite people of the margins were able to overrun parts of Mesopotamia and were responsible for founding Babylon and its Old Babylonian Empire around 1900 BCE; they founded the Fourteenth Dynasty of Egypt around 1800 or 1700 BCE and also were probably a part of the Hyksos invaders who overran all of Lower Egypt by 1650 BCE. The Amorites had already appeared in the area of Canaan and the Levant by the days of Abraham around 2000 BCE; when God spoke to Abraham regarding the sojourn of his descendants, He promised they would return to the land of Canaan, but only after the “sin of the Amorites” reached its limit according to Genesis 15:13-16. By the days of Moses around 1450 or 1250 BCE, the Amorite kingdoms may not have been as powerful as they had been before, but they manifestly maintained their integrity in Canaan and the Levant.

But YHWH would judge and condemn the Amorites wherever they endured during the Late Bronze Age and in the collapse of the Bronze Age, and Israel was His chosen instrument against the Amorites in Canaan and the Transjordan area. Ever afterward, the Israelites, Ammonites, and Moabites would contest the former lands of Sihon and Og in the Transjordan area (e.g. Judges 11:12-14).

After their success against Sihon and Og, the Israelites camped in the rift valley plains of Moab along the Jordan across from Jericho, and here would remain their base until Joshua would lead them into Canaan (Numbers 22:1; cf. Joshua 3:1).

In this way all the wilderness wanderings of Israel came to an end; Israel now found itself almost at the point of crossing over and obtaining all YHWH had promised their ancestors. Much would still take place; Israel would not be the same people by the time they would cross the river as they were when they arrived. But they were also not the same people who had arrived at Kadesh in Numbers 20:1. They had reached the nadir of their experience in the wilderness, but had now tasted of YHWH’s blessing and victory in war. While they had not yet stopped their complaining, they had at least learned to apologize and repent of it. And they had begun conquering the land YHWH was giving them, overcoming the Amorite kings Sihon and Og, and striking fear in the heart of all the Canaanites (cf. Joshua 2:10). May we gain insight and understanding regarding how we can faithfully serve God from the example of Israel, and obtain eternal life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post From Mount Hor to the Plains of Moab appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

I Am He

Jesus was betrayed and arrested, but He was never overcome. Jesus would drink the cup the Father had prepared for Him, yet would remain the main character throughout.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).

Jesus had prepared for this moment by dining with His disciples, speaking with them at length, and praying to the Father (John 13:1-17:26). In so doing He proved far less concerned about Himself and much more regarding His disciples lest they make very foolish decisions during the pivotal forty-eight-hour period which would change the world forever. Having encouraged them and entrusted them to His Father in prayer, He would now go out across the Kidron with His disciples to a garden (John 18:1).

The “garden” was no doubt the Garden of Gethsemane; John spoke of how Jesus had met there frequently with His disciples, and thus Judas Iscariot knew of the place as well (John 18:2). And so Judas arrived with some of the officers of the chief priests and Pharisees and a speiran of soldiers, the Greek technical term for a Roman cohort of soldiers (John 18:3). A cohort was normally six hundred men. Many have scoffed at the prospect of bringing six hundred men to bear in this situation and even wonder how they could all fit in the space. At the same time, it would not be entirely foolish to bring an overwhelming show of force to strike fear in Jesus and His disciples and therefore to discourage any attempt at starting a fight or making a scene.

Jesus was quite aware of all which was about to take place. He therefore deliberately asked the crowd who they were looking for, and they replied they sought Jesus the Nazarene (John 18:4-5a). He spoke and told them, “I am He” (John 18:5b). Upon doing so, the soldiers and others retreated and fell to the ground (John 18:6)!

The scene should strike us as humorous: this great show of force has come forth, and yet they are immediately knocked down by the mere word of Jesus. But perhaps it was no “mere” word: Scripture provides abundant witness to people falling down whenever they are confronted by a divine appearance, whether it be of an angel or the pre-incarnate Son of God (e.g. Judges 13:20, Ezekiel 1:28). Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore His voice might have been far more profoundly heard than we can imagine, and all these forces falling down provide ironic witness to Jesus’ divinity and standing.

John likely also deliberately associated the scene in the garden with man’s original experience in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:1-3:22). As God would go about in the midst of the Garden of Eden, so Jesus would meet with His disciples in the garden (Genesis 3:8, John 18:2). As God summoned Adam, so the soldiers summoned Jesus (Genesis 3:9, John 18:4). Therefore, as man suffered from the curse and was expelled from the Garden of Eden, so Jesus would be led out of the garden and would suffer for the sins of mankind to redeem them from the curse (Genesis 3:14-21, John 18:1-19:30).

Jesus and the soldiers would repeat themselves again, and Jesus then made provision for His disciples: if they sought Jesus, then they should let the others go (John 18:7-8). John confirmed Jesus did so in order to fulfill His promise of not losing any of His disciples (John 18:9; cf. John 17:12).

Simon Peter then pulled out a sword and cut off the ear of Malchus, a slave of the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus chastised Peter, telling him to return the sword to the sheath, since Jesus would drink the cup the Father gave to Him (John 18:11). Then Jesus was tied up and arrested (John 18:12).

In this way John narrated how Jesus was betrayed and arrested in the garden (John 18:1-12). Whereas Judas would betray Jesus with a kiss according to the Synoptic Gospels, Judas in John simply led the soldiers to the garden and otherwise remained a spectator (Mark 14:43-45, John 18:1-8). Only in John is the theophany scene described (John 18:4-8). We should not imagine John denied Judas’ betrayal by a kiss; if anyone seemed to want to make much of Judas’ treachery, it would be John the Evangelist (cf. John 12:4-6)! Instead, John wanted to keep the focus on Jesus as Lord, fully in charge even of the circumstances under which He would be arrested. Likewise, only in John do we learn of Malchus’ name, although John did not speak of Jesus healing the servant (John 18:11-12). Since we believe John to be the “another disciple” present in John 18:15-24, and therefore one known to the high priest’s family, it would make sense for John to have some personal experience with Malchus. Perhaps Malchus never forgot what Jesus had done in this circumstance and later became a disciple of Jesus, and thus his name has been preserved in the Gospel record.

Jesus’ rebuke of Peter deserves our strong consideration. John spoke of the moment in terms of Jesus being willing to suffer what the Father had determined was necessary (John 18:12), and such was certainly a significant part of the motivation. But Jesus’ words in Matthew should also ring in our ears: Peter should put the sword away because those who live by the sword also die by it (Matthew 26:52). Jesus’ reign would not be inaugurated with the blood of His enemies through institutional violence like every other kingdom; it would be inaugurated through His own blood shed for others. There can be no justification or rationalization of violence in the name of Jesus; in the garden at this very moment, Jesus repudiated all such violence as the ways of the world which would soon put Jesus on the cross. Christians should find themselves utterly transformed by what God has thus accomplished in Jesus and should resist responding to evil with evil but instead doing good to all and to love their enemies (cf. Luke 6:31-37, Romans 12:19-21).

Having been arrested, Jesus was led to Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas, high priest of Israel at the time (John 18:13-14). This is consistent with the evidence we have regarding the high priesthood at this time. While it was God’s purposes for the high priest to serve for life, the Romans would install and depose high priests according to their desires. Annas was high priest from 6-15; despite being deposed in 15, he remained highly influential because his sons and son-in-law would serve as high priests at various times after him (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1). Joseph Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in-law, served as high priest from 18-36; John reminded us how Caiaphas had spoken in John 11:49-50 how it would be better for Jesus to die for the people.

John would then proceed to narrate simultaneous action throughout John 18:15-27: the scene inside Annas’ house, in which Annas questioned Jesus, and the scene outside, in which Peter, “another disciple” (whom we believe is John the Evangelist), and some of the soldiers and slaves of the chief priests outside.

Inside the house, Jesus was questioned about His disciples and teaching (John 18:19). Jesus, seeking to protect His disciples, deferred to all the times He had spoken publicly and thus invited questioning those who had heard Him (John 18:20-21). He was struck by one of the officers of the high priest as if He had spoken insolently; Jesus demanded to know what He had said which was wrong and merited the abuse and insult (John 18:22-23). We learn nothing about what Annas felt about the whole thing, but we do know he would send Jesus on to Caiaphas the high priest (John 18:24).

While all this is happening, Peter and “another disciple,” John the Evangelist most likely, were just outside: they had followed the motley crew which had arrested Jesus to the house of Annas (John 18:15). John was acquainted with Annas, and so was able to enter Annas’ courtyard (John 18:15). Peter did not have that kind of privilege, so John went out and spoke to the slave girl at the door to let Peter in (John 18:16). The slave girl asked Peter if he was a disciple of Jesus, but Peter denied it (John 18:17).

It can be cold at night in Jerusalem in March/April, and so a good number of those in the courtyard were standing around a charcoal fire: slaves of the high priest, guards, including some of those who had arrested Jesus, and Peter and John join them (John 18:18). Some of them seemed to recognize Peter and asked him if he were one of Jesus’ disciples, and he denied it (John 18:25). Then one of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of Malchus no less, asked him if he had seen him in the garden with Jesus; Peter denied it again, and a rooster crowed (John 18:26-27).

John’s narration of Peter’s denials remains dramatic, vivid in its details with far less commentary than one might have expected. We should imagine the level of questioning and the drama to intensify as the events unfolded. The slave girl most likely meant nothing accusatory by her question; she probably knew John had association with Jesus, and she was therefore likely asking if Peter did too. Peter was in almost no danger whatsoever had he told the slave girl the truth. In this way, his denial of Jesus before the slave girl proved most discordant, but likely gives us an insight into Peter’s mindset at the moment. He is somewhere he should not be, and he is aware of the danger in which he finds himself. And yet he cannot help himself; he wants to see what is going on. By denying Jesus to a slave girl of little consequence, he is exposing his mindset and heart at the moment.

The charcoal fire scene is almost comical: all kinds of people who were in the garden, once opposed to one another, now sharing the same space, trying to keep warm. It makes sense for the guards and the slaves of the high priest to be there. John might be taking a risk by being there, but we can assume he feels sufficiently safe on account of his connections with Annas; but Peter has no reason whatsoever to be there, and all the more so on account of his stunt with Malchus (John 18:11-12).

And so we do well to understand the two questions as ever more intense accusations. “They” were not looking for information; “they” were looking to confirm something of which they were already confident. We can be quite sure Malchus’ relative would have remembered what Peter looked like, and even if Malchus were healed, there would have been little love or forgiveness for Peter.

Peter had put himself in an impossible position: if he did confess he was a disciple of Jesus in John 18:25-26, the guards would have no doubt grabbed him, led him in to Annas’ house, and Peter would have been crucified along with Jesus.

And so, in a twisted way, the will of God was accomplished and satisfied by Peter’s fear and impulse toward self-preservation in denying Jesus at the charcoal fire. It would not have been necessary had Peter not followed Jesus into Annas’ courtyard. Peter put himself into an impossible position and had to make an impossible choice. In so doing he denied Jesus his Lord and Messiah; he knew what that meant, as did Jesus.

Some want to make much of how Jesus protected Peter and His disciples through all of this; others want to make much of Peter’s reckless impetuousness. What should impress us regarding this situation is the danger of being in places we should not be. None of this would have been an issue had Peter run away like the rest of the disciples: Jesus had made provision for this very thing, it was a “hot” situation and the male disciples were in quite extreme danger; God was providing protection by the very means of running away and taking shelter until all had been accomplished. Peter may have felt as if he was motivated by his faith to find out what would happen to Jesus, but in the end, he did not act according to faith; if he really had trusted Jesus, he would have run away as well. For this kind of reason Jesus counseled Christians to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves in Matthew 10:16 precisely because He sent His disciples out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and we should not presume we are always so strong in faith as to be willing to put ourselves in just any and every situation. We, also, have some places in which we should not be found. If we throw ourselves headlong into that kind of danger, we should not be surprised to discover we are choosing between betrayal or great, and perhaps even unnecessary, suffering.

John normally proved eager to make the connections to the fulfillment of all Jesus had spoken; yet John did not mention how Jesus had prophesied Peter’s denials in John 13:38, or how Jesus looked over at Peter when Peter had denied him and Peter ran off in tears, as Luke did in Luke 22:61-62. But John did not have to do any of these things, because such witness had already been offered.

Instead, John would continue on with the story of what would happen to Jesus in John 18:27 and following. John himself would not be seen again in the narrative until Jesus was hanging on the cross in John 19:26; Peter will only return to the scene after Mary Magdalene told him the tomb was empty in John 20:1-2. But these events would not be forgotten. As Peter would deny Jesus before a charcoal fire; Jesus would gently restore him before a charcoal fire (John 18:18, 21:9).

Nevertheless, John would not want us to be distracted at this moment in Jesus’ story. Jesus remained the main character throughout: He would suffer betrayal and arrest, but would be handed over on His own terms, having demonstrated who He was and what He was about. He would suffer indignities from the religious authorities, yet unjustly; the irony would remain thick and pervasive throughout. Jesus would now be under the power of the religious authorities and the Romans, but would remain the Son of God and Lord throughout, fully drinking the cup God had prepared for Him. May we put our trust in Jesus as Lord and find eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post I Am He appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Love, Sincerity, and Righteousness

And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God (Philippians 1:9-11).

It may prove easy to quickly pass over Paul’s prayers in his correspondence, but doing so would not be wise. We can learn much regarding Paul’s concerns for the Christians to whom he writes within his prayers, and his prayers often prove profitable for us today.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul wanted to send a word of thanksgiving and encouragement, and to this end wrote the Philippian letter.

According to standard conventions of letter writing in the Greco-Roman world, Paul followed up his greeting with an exordium, or introduction (Philippians 1:3-11). In Philippians 1:3-8, Paul gave thanks for the Philippian Christians and their joint participation with him in his ministry and sufferings. He would conclude this opening and demonstration of purpose with his prayer for the Philippians recorded in Philippians 1:9-11.

Paul began his prayer for the Philippian Christians with a desire for their love to abound all the more in knowledge and insight, or discernment (Philippians 1:9). To the Corinthians Paul had rhapsodized about the power and importance of love in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; only that which was done in love would be of any value in the Christian faith. Jesus’ great new commandment to His disciples was to love one another as Jesus had loved them, and Jesus expected everyone to recognize His disciples by their love for one another (John 13:31-35). When Christians would become one with one another and with God as the Father and the Son are one, the world would know the Father has loved Christians just as the Father loved the Son (John 17:23). John’s compelling portrayals of love were all written to encourage Christians to love one another (1 John 3:15-18, 4:7-21). Therefore, it is not surprising for Paul to first and foremost want the Philippian Christians to maintain and grow in their love: for God, for one another, and for all.

Paul prayed for this love to abound in knowledge and insight/discernment (Philippians 1:9). Love is not arrogant and does not seek its own; love bears all things (1 Corinthians 13:4-5, 8); a quest for knowledge unto mastery and manipulation, therefore, remains entirely incompatible with love. Thus, Paul did not intend for the Christians in Philippi to gain a better mastery of information so they might be in a better position to overcome or manipulate others. Love can abound in knowledge and insight through the cultivation and development of relationships; likewise, one can love and have their love gain knowledge and discernment through the exercise of all which characterizes love, aptly summed up not only in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 but also in the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-24. We should not understand Paul as encouraging the Philippian Christians to go on some kind of intellectual quest; instead, love can only abound in knowledge and insight through the practice of jointly participating in the life of faith, bearing with and tolerating one another, seeking to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (cf. Ephesians 4:1-3).

Paul prayed for the love of the Philippian Christians to abound all the more in knowledge and discernment so they would be able to decide what was best, or approve what is excellent, and in this way prove sincere and blameless for the day of Christ (Philippians 1:10). Paul would likewise understand this condition as featuring being filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus to the glory and praise of God (Philippians 1:11).

We should not miss out on the focal, animating point of Paul’s prayer: he prayed for the Philippian Christians to exercise wisdom in discernment in Christ. Paul had great confidence in the Philippian Christians: if they abounded in love and entrusted themselves to God in Christ through the Spirit, they would more likely than not make the best possible decision in the various circumstances and situations in which they would find themselves on a day-to-day basis, and would be able to stand before God in sincerity, filled with the fruit of righteousness.

Throughout his letter to the Philippians, Paul would focus both on how God works in and through Christians, but also on how Christians are expected to thus prove faithful and obedient. Paul’s whole prayer is for the Philippian Christians to abound in love to make good decisions; yet Paul also considered the result as those Christians as filled with the righteousness that comes through Jesus. The fruit of righteousness could only come through Jesus: as Jesus Himself affirmed in John 15:1-9, without Him, Christians could do nothing. That imagery of Jesus as the Vine and Christians as the branches well attested to the complete dependence of Christians on Jesus for righteous living. Yet it proved incumbent upon the branches to grow the fruit, and there would be some branches which would not bear fruit and be cut off; Christians still have to actually submit to Jesus and His ways through His Spirit, and actively and continually submit themselves to God in Christ through the Spirit and be continually transformed thereby.

We do well to note how Paul viewed all such things in an “apocalyptic” perspective, providing this encouragement in prayer in light of the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Far too many invest far too much effort and interest into whether Paul expected the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in his lifetime, and how that might have affected what he wrote. None should be deceived: Paul almost assuredly expected Jesus to return very soon. He preached and wrote with the kind of immediacy which living in the expectation of that kind of apocalypse engenders. But the fact Jesus has yet to return does not somehow defeat anything Paul said or emphasized; He could still come at any time, and the moment of His return is always closer now than it ever has (cf. Romans 13:11). Even though the Lord Jesus Christ has yet to return, Paul’s prayer did not lose its effectiveness. If the Philippian Christians abounded in love and made good decisions, they will stand sincere and blameless for the day of Christ whenever that day may come; the fruit of their righteousness through Christ glorified God and will glorify God forevermore.

Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9-11 aptly concluded his exordium and strongly hinted at what his letter would be all about. He wanted them to abound in love with greater knowledge and insight to make high quality decisions, displaying the fruit of righteousness through Christ, displaying their sincerity and blamelessness before Him. In this way he complimented them in their faith, maturity, and standing: they already had love, and he wanted them to grow in it; he had confidence in their ability in Christ to make the kinds of decisions which would bear the fruit of righteousness. We can, and should, reckon what Paul will say about having the mind of Christ in Philippians 2:5-11, or striving for the resurrection in Philippians 3:1-15, or to rejoice and consider all which is praiseworthy in Philippians 4:4-8 as commenting and expanding upon that for which Paul prayed. How can one abound in love with knowledge and discernment to make good decisions, displaying sincerity and the fruit of righteousness? By having the mind of Christ and acting like it; by striving for the resurrection; by everything else Paul will have to say to the Philippians.

But we would not be wrong to also perceive in Paul’s prayer a bit of a nudge regarding some people and circumstances. “Euodia” and “Syntyche” need to agree in the Lord (Philippians 4:2); they need to abound in love to make the right decisions in Christ. There are some aspects of critique regarding the Philippian Christians which can be perceived in Paul’s prayer; nevertheless, Paul’s prayer for the Philippian Christians, on the whole, bore witness to the shared love and faith among them all.

It is unfortunate how some Christians reckon prepared or written prayers as primarily performative; it can lead to a jaded perspective and a severe underestimation of what Paul was about and trying to do with his written prayers in his letters. Paul was a big believer in the power of God in Christ through the Spirit, and we should never imagine he wrote out these prayers in a perfunctory or performative way. It would not be surprising if Paul himself believed his prayers would prove some of the most effective aspects of his correspondence on account of his great confidence in God and His working in the world.

Paul’s prayer for the Philippian Christians in Philippians 1:9-11 was effective for them, and we can appropriate the prayer and make it effective for Christians today as well. Christians should pray for one another so we might abound in love in knowledge and insight to the end of making good decisions, thereby displaying the fruit of righteousness through Christ, in sincerity and blameless before Jesus when He returns.

It is never inappropriate for Christians to emphasize the importance of loving one another and growing in that love. Such love should be in sincerity and deed, not mere pretense and word. It cannot be studied into or intellectually acquired as much as experienced and shared. Relational unity with God and His people must become our primary focus and mission, and it can only be accomplished in and through loving God and loving one another, and it alone truly bears witness to God in the world (John 17:20-26).

To pray for Christians to decide what is best requires a decent amount of confidence in Christians to that end. A lot of Christians do not have that confidence about themselves or fellow Christians: they are convinced Christians are worldly and carnal and can only be counted on to do the right thing if the law is laid down and strict boundaries are established. Christians indeed start out with more carnal and worldly perspectives and behaviors; there are times and seasons in which delimited boundaries can be good and helpful. But Paul, and Jesus, expect Christians to grow and mature beyond these things. In walking by the Spirit and abounding in love, a Christian should develop to a point at which he or she has gained sufficient knowledge and discernment to decide well and properly in various situations and circumstances. Such a Christian does not have to try to figure out where “the line” is; he or she will be so formed and shaped by what God has accomplished in Christ as to heed the promptings of the Spirit to go in the way of sincerity and blamenessness, and in so doing display the fruit of righteousness in Christ.

Yes, it is a scary proposition to walk by faith and have to make those kinds of decisions. We might feel far more comfortable if we had more explicit recommendations and be told exactly what to do. But it was never feasible, practical, or even wise for God in Christ to provide this level of explicit recommendation in the Spirit. The goal was never to have “the answer”; the goal has always been to be rooted and grounded in God in Christ through the Spirit. If we abound in love with knowledge and discernment, we can trust in our ability to discern the excellent thing, glorifying God in Christ by displaying the fruit of righteousness and justice in Him, standing in sincerity and blameless before Him. If we continually fail at discerning the excellent thing, then perhaps we have not truly abounded in love; perhaps we have failed to obtain sufficient relational and experiential knowledge and discernment; perhaps we are not truly walking by and living according to the Spirit of God. The appropriate response is not to insist on drawing lines and making laws; the appropriate response is to change our hearts and minds to be better conformed to the ways of God in Christ in repentance.

We can have complete confidence Paul’s prayer for the Philippian Christians proved effective for them. May it prove effective for us as well. May our love abound more and more in knowledge and discernment so we might make the good, healthy, and right choices, standing sincere and blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, filled with the fruit of the righteousness which comes through Him, all unto the glory and praise of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Love, Sincerity, and Righteousness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel and the Enlightenment Paradigm

Many Christians today consider “the Gospel” as a set of facts/truth propositions regarding the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth that ought to be personally affirmed and communicated to others. In this framework, the Gospel is primarily viewed in terms of information which must be acquired and distributed. But does this framework well and fully capture what God intended with the Gospel? In what ways might this framework manifest failures of imagination and therefore neglect of important aspects of the way the Gospel is to be accepted, communicated, and experienced?

This framework has come down to us on account of two historical trends. The first featured the “dogmatization” of the faith in the shift in focus from the Gospel to the creeds: in this way the primacy of the Gospel as what God has accomplished in Christ and what we are to do about it was lost in favor of insisting upon dogmatic doctrinal formulations regarding the Gospel as propositions to argue and defend. Many years after this, the second trend manifested itself in what has become popularly known as “the Enlightenment” and the answers to the challenges and problems of life it would offer.

“The Enlightenment” is the term used to describe a constellation of philosophical, scientific, and technological developments, primarily in the eighteenth century, and the birth of a new approach to the world. While the Enlightenment featured a variety of philosophers and scientists with all sorts of different ideas about how things worked, a general theme emerged from all of their endeavors. They came to affirm the importance and power of reason over all else. In their perspective, the world had been subject to the “darkness” of ignorance and superstition since time immemorial; through the exercise of human reason in various metaphysical and physical exploits, humanity could come to a better understanding of how things worked, and thus disperse the “darkness” of ignorance and superstition with the “light” of reason and knowledge.

We can speak of a perspective highly informed by these values of the Enlightenment as the “Enlightenment paradigm.” In this paradigm, the real problem in the world is ignorance. The solution to the problem of ignorance is knowledge. When the “light” of knowledge comes forth, the “darkness” of ignorance and/or superstition will be exposed and will flee. Once a person develops a better understanding informed by the exercise of reason and logic, they will reform their behaviors accordingly.

We can see the Enlightenment paradigm at work in the world in phrases like “when we know better, we do better.” For those of us of a certain generation, the best example of the Enlightenment paradigm at work was the D.A.R.E. Program: Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Officials from the D.A.R.E. Program would come to schools to encourage resisting drug use and abuse by explaining to small children what drugs were and what drugs would do.

We should not be surprised to find the Enlightenment paradigm at work among Christians and within churches, especially within the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement. Many of the “Restorers” championed “common sense reasoning” as the ultimate standard for coming to a knowledge of the truth of God and being saved, very much in line with the overall Enlightenment program. Christians today tend to take literacy for granted, and presume a good and faithful Christian will be able to read the Scriptures, will read the Scriptures, and will study the Scriptures in a devoted manner, and expect this kind of behavior to define the Christian and the Christian life. In so doing, it can be easy to define and understand “the Gospel” primarily and principally in terms of the relevant texts read and studies. If a Christian is found in a moral lapse, or no longer associates with fellow Christians, the default assumption generally is how such a person “knows better.” Many a preacher and/or a self-appointed “watchman” of the brotherhood will immediately assume any deficiency in a Christian or a church can only be the result of insufficient teaching or exhortation.

Specifically in terms of the Gospel, the Enlightenment paradigm can be seen at work in reducing the Gospel to a set of truth propositions regarding Jesus to be acquired and distributed. As a result of this perspective, many deny the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian; if the Gospel is only a set of truth propositions, once the Spirit made known all which we now call the New Testament, His work was entirely finished. Furthermore, the study of the Scriptures and the Gospel therein is elevated as one of the ultimate ideal behaviors for the Christian. The presumption throughout has been according to the paradigm encouraged by the Enlightenment: once a person has come to know about Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return through reading the New Testament or hearing it preached, he or she will then naturally, according to their strength and reason, do all which God requires according to the Gospel. And, as noted, any failure to do so is understood as a deficiency in knowledge or understanding: they were clearly insufficiently taught, because if they had been taught properly, they would therefore act properly.

If there is anything truly astonishing about the Enlightenment paradigm, it is in how successful it has proven. Humans have come to understand many aspects of the creation in far better ways today than their ancestors could have even imagined. Literacy, especially in industrialized nations, has become the norm and not the exception.

The success of the Enlightenment paradigm comes from its partial truth. Ignorance and superstition really are problems from which humanity suffers. The solution for humanity often does involve gaining knowledge. People often will learn something and then change their behavior because of what they have learned.

The partial truth of the Enlightenment paradigm provides continuing justification for those who rely on it in their faith. Hosea rightly denounced Israel as destroyed for lack of knowledge in Hosea 4:6. God desires for all to come to a knowledge of the truth in order to be saved according to 1 Timothy 2:4. It is good and profitable to know how to read, and to dedicate oneself to the reading and study of the Scriptures. The Gospel does encode important information regarding what God accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return; we need to acquire such knowledge if we would be saved, and also communicate and convey that knowledge to others to the same end (cf. Matthew 28:18-20, 2 Timothy 2:2). Sometimes people do sin in their ignorance; and many times people will stop participating in sinful practices, and will start living according to what God has made known in Jesus, once they have been made aware of what to do and what not to do (Ephesians 2:1-20).

Thus there can be found some justification for the Enlightenment paradigm. The problem, however, is the Enlightenment paradigm is insufficient in and of itself. Ignorance is a problem for humanity, and knowledge is a solution. But Scripture bears witness to challenges to humanity beyond ignorance; and knowledge does not only rarely prove sufficient in and of itself to motivate appropriate behavioral changes, but sometimes itself becomes the problem. Knowledge proves necessary but not sufficient for true reform and restoration.

The difficulties with the Enlightenment paradigm can be well exemplified by what Paul made known in Romans 7:7-25. In speaking of the Torah of Israel, Paul defended it as right, holy, and good, yet found himself condemned in and by it on account of sin. Paul even addressed how knowledge of the Law could lead to sin: he had not known what coveting was before he was told to not covet, and sin found its opportunity (cf. Romans 7:7-8). A great example of this, not my own, would be to imagine a young boy given a gift of a toy bow and arrow set. Before he goes out to merrily play with it, his mother warns him to not make fire arrows with it. While it might be possible such a child was already pyromanically inclined and would have thought of such a thing on his own, the vast majority of young boys would probably have not had such a thought immediately. But now that the mother mentioned the possibility, the young boy will be far more tempted to make fire arrows than he would have been otherwise.

Those of us with experience with the D.A.R.E. Program can provide a similar witness. The program was a success for many children: they learned about drugs and the things drugs could do to them, and they were “scared straight” into not using drugs. At the same time, the D.A.R.E. Program became a moment of awareness for many other children: they heard the same message, but were now very interested in using the drugs! This is the same reason why many are concerned about providing education about sexual practices in schools: they imagine children will take it as encouragement to go out and engage in sexual behaviors. Therefore, it does not automatically follow for a person to “do better” if they “know better.” Sometimes, in fact, people do worse because they have gained knowledge!

And so the Enlightenment paradigm cannot deliver on its promises. Humans have more problems than only ignorance and superstition; they are inclined toward sin and rebellion, and will often cast aspersions on what they should accept as true, and fail to use critical reasoning in terms of things they should reject. Knowledge can lead a person to understand better and behave better; knowledge can also lead a person to arrogance, presumption, and rebellious behaviors.

The challenges and limitations of the Enlightenment paradigm should be brought to bear in how Christians approach the Gospel, the Scriptures, and one another. We cannot have uncritical faith and confidence in the moral integrity of unaided human reason, for our ability to reason is limited by our creaturely finitude and our fallen nature as sinful humans (cf. Romans 3:23, 9:19-20). We cannot assume a person will do better just because they know better: Christians continue to struggle with the temptation to sin even once redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John 1:8-10). We cannot reason and study ourselves out of every problem and challenge or into full understanding and practice of the faith of God in Christ: reason and study remain good tools, but as part of a larger endeavor in faith.

Exposing the limitations of the Enlightenment paradigm should hopefully help us better see how we have limited our understanding and practice of what God has accomplished in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus and through His Spirit. Since we do not inherently do better because we know better, the Gospel should be much more than mere information to acquire and distribute. Since exhorting, learning, and knowing do not automatically lead to better doing, our experience of and in the Gospel should involve much more than knowledge acquisition and distribution.

When we confess how we do not automatically do better because we know better on account of sin, we can see how we have diminished the role and work of the Holy Spirit. Our ancestors maintained a diminished perspective on the world and regarding the Gospel by imagining the only work in which the Spirit would be involved centered on information distribution. The Spirit absolutely is at work in how the truth of God in Christ has been made known in the messages found in the Old and New Testaments. Yet Paul expected the Thessalonian Christians to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit in 2 Thessalonians 2:13; the Spirit remains actively at work in making Christians holy through His intercessions and promptings. The unity of Christians was established in the Spirit, and Christians are called upon to display the fruit of the Spirit in their lives (Galatians 5:22-24, Ephesians 4:1-4). Not for nothing did Paul speak of the Christian life as “walking by the Spirit” in Romans 8:1-11: never in terms contrary to that which has been made known in Scripture, but expecting far more than merely reading the Bible and then doing everything it says using only one’s unaided powers of reason and ability.

For that matter, we can also come to understand how we have limited our understanding of “knowledge.” By reducing the Gospel to a series of truth propositions regarding what God accomplished in Jesus, we could deceive ourselves into thinking we could come to a full understanding of those truth propositions by our powers of reasoning and understanding, possess them fully, and impressively argue against all who would resist them to whatever degree, and thus find ourselves justified. Yet note well that for which Jesus prayed: for believers to become relationally one with God and one another as God maintained relational unity (John 17:20-23). He could speak of having made known the Father and His name to the disciples, and the disciples came to know the Father and the Son (John 17:24-26). Such knowledge was not mere facts about who God is and what He was about; it was relational knowledge, borne not merely from hearing the words of Jesus but by seeing His deeds and sharing in both of them. True knowledge of God in Christ is experiential, not merely through hearing and accepting factual truth, but also by doing the will of God and thus becoming conformed to the image of the Son (cf. Romans 8:29, James 1:22-25). Experience should never be used as a witness in contradiction to anything revealed in the Scriptures; nevertheless, the truth of the Gospel is shorn of its activity and integrity if and when we deny the importance of experiencing the truth of God through a life of faith in Christ empowered by the Spirit.

In a similar vein, we do well to gently ask ourselves if we have made more of personal reading and study in Christian faith and practice than is truly appropriate according to what has been made known by God in Christ through the Spirit. At no point do the Scriptures ever bear witness of God requiring believers to be literate in order to come to a knowledge of the Gospel and be saved. On the contrary: based on what we can know from history, we should fully expect to find in the resurrection far more believers in Christ who never learned how to read and therefore never spent a moment studying the Bible than those who were literate and engaged in such study! We should therefore not be surprised to discover the Scriptures never command the Christian to study them; the predominant metaphor is not “read and study” but “hear and understand” (e.g. Romans 10:8-17). This is why Paul put strong emphasis on giving attention to the public reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:13: those who could not read would have no other means by which to come to an understanding of the Gospel or the Scriptures save by public reading, and would therefore not be aware of any discrepancies between what was written and what was spoken.

This is not a rejection of studying the Scripture or a call to encourage ignorance of what God has made known in Christ. Instead, it is an exhortation to make sure we do not spend so much time with our faces down in the Book that we rarely look up to God and get up and do His bidding. It is a reminder that mastering Bible trivia is not equivalent to growing in holiness and righteousness, and to know Scripture does not automatically mean one has come to know its Author. It is also an encouragement to dispel any delusion vainly imagining more reading and study will necessarily lead one to become a better Christian; we can read and study and yet come no closer to coming to the relational knowledge necessary to grow further in God in Christ and with one another. Some of those who have acquired the most facts about the Scriptures have proven the least Christlike of all; some people who never read a page of the Scriptures in their lives nevertheless heard the Scriptures spoken, committed the message to their hearts and minds, and well grew in relational knowledge of God in Christ.

The Gospel as the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return therefore involves a lot more than a series of facts or truth propositions to acquire and to distribute to others, although it certainly is not less. The Gospel bears witness to what God has done and invites those who hear it to jointly participate in that work God is accomplishing in Christ and through the Spirit. Transformation through walking according to the Spirit flows from the Gospel and can only truly take place by means of that Spirit and within the community formed and shaped by the Gospel. May we turn aside from the failures of imagination we have inherited on account of the Enlightenment paradigm, and well and properly walk in the Spirit and make known what God has accomplished in Christ in our words and deeds!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel and the Enlightenment Paradigm appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The High Priestly Prayer

The time for His betrayal, arrest, trial, and crucifixion drew near. He had encouraged His disciples. But before anything else would take place, Jesus would pray.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).

Immediately upon ending His extended discourse with His eleven disciples (John 13:31-16:31), Jesus looked upward to heaven and began praying (John 17:1). Whether Jesus had gone somewhere by Himself or gave the prayer in the presence of His disciples was not revealed, and arguments are made for either possibility.

Jesus began His prayer with what we could deem a report summary of His work and ministry in John 17:1-8 (cf. John 1:1-16:31). Jesus announced the coming of the time for the glorification of the Son so the Son would glorify Him: the Father gave the Son authority over people so He could give eternal life, which was defined as knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent (John 17:1-3). Jesus confirmed the glorification of the Father on earth by doing the work God gave Jesus to do; thus Jesus asked to receive glory at the side of the Father as He enjoyed before the earth was created (John 17:4-5). Jesus made known the Father’s name to the disciples given to Jesus out of the world; they belonged to the Father, and He gave them to the Son, and they have obeyed the word of the Father (John 17:6). They had come to understand everything the Son has came from the Father; they accepted the words of the Son as belonging to the Father, and the Son had come from the Father (John 17:7-8).

In this way Jesus summarized all of His life’s work and purpose: He certainly proclaimed the purposes of God to all Israel, but His primary mission involved making known the ways of the Father to the disciples in particular. We can, and should, profitably read all which had previously taken place in the Gospel in John, and the other Gospels as well, in light of this insistence; in so doing we can see the Evangelists presented Jesus primarily in terms of providing instruction and direction to the disciples.

Yet why would Jesus’ primary focus fall upon those disciples? We can get an idea from the core of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:9-19. Jesus prayed on behalf of the disciples: not the world, but on those given to Jesus, since they belong to the Father (John 17:9). After confessing everything belonging to the Father belongs to the Son and vice versa, Jesus declared the disciples had glorified Jesus (John 17:10). Jesus spoke (most likely proleptically) of no longer being in the world and coming to the Father; He therefore prayed for the Father to keep the disciples safe in the name given to Jesus so they might be one as the Father and Son are one (John 17:11). Jesus kept them safe while He was with them, and the only one lost was the one destined for destruction and to fulfill the Scripture (John 17:12). But now Jesus would be returning to the Father, and so He spoke these things while still in the world so they might experience the completion of His joy in themselves (John 17:13). The world hated them because Jesus gave them the word of the Father: they thus no longer belong to the world, just as Jesus did not belong to the world (John 17:14, 16). Jesus was not asking for the Father to remove them from the world but to keep them safe from the evil one (John 17:15). Jesus asked the Father to set them apart in the truth; the word of the Father is truth; as the Father sent the Son into the world, so Jesus has sent the disciples into the world; and Jesus set Himself apart on their behalf so they might be truly set apart (John 17:16-19).

And so Jesus asked the Father to watch over and protect the disciples since He would no longer be able to do so as He had done previously while on earth. He had prepared them to go out into the world and proclaim all God had accomplished through Him, and this they would begin to do soon after His resurrection and ascension (cf. Acts 2ff). He expected the disciples to endure the hostility of the world; the Acts of the Apostles would bear witness to some of what the disciples would be called upon to suffer.

Jesus asked the Father to keep the disciples safe, and yet the Scriptures would attest to James ben Zebedee’s martyrdom in Acts 12:2 and foreshadowed Simon Peter’s martyrdom in John 21:18-19); tradition would attest to the martyrdom of all the apostles save perhaps John the Evangelist. Was Jesus’ prayer frustrated, or prayed in vain? Far from it; the disciples accomplished all God intended for them to do. They bore witness to Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return; almost two thousand years later, we still hear of and speak regarding their witness. We can perceive the protection the Father gave to the disciples in experiences like their imprisonments and delivery in Acts 4:1-31, 5:17-42, 12:3-19, and in other situations. Our challenges with this situation involve our assumption the request for protection would demand the disciples enjoy a completely quiet, unmolested life. God’s purposes in Christ are not frustrated by worldly opposition, persecution, and resistance; instead, they are expected. Jesus’ prayer for His disciples was heard and honored; the deaths the disciples suffered all ultimately worked to the glory of God in Christ.

Jesus then prayed on behalf of “those who believe in Me through their testimony” (John 17:20), that is, all believers in Christ. All who believe, from the day of Pentecost in 30 until the day the Lord Jesus Christ returns, do so on the basis of the testimony the disciples provided.

Jesus prayed for all Christians to live in relational unity with God and with one another: that all Christians would be one, as the Father and the Son are in one another, and they would be in the Father and the Son, so the world would believe the Father sent Jesus (John 17:21). The glory of the Father given to the Son would now be given to Christians so they might be one as the Father and Son are one, with the Son in them and the Father in the Son, so they might be completely one, and the world would know the Father sent the Son and the Father has loved Christians as He loved the Son (John 17:22-23). Jesus wanted all those the Father gave Him to be with Jesus where He was so they might see the glory the Father gave the Son since He loved Him before the creation of the world (John 17:24). Jesus concluded His prayer by confessing His and His disciples’ knowledge of the Father, even if the world did not know Him; Jesus made the name of the Father known to the disciples, and would continue to do so, so the love the Father had for the Son may be in the disciples, and Jesus might be in the disciples (John 17:25-26).

Just before Jesus went to suffer unimaginable agony and terror, He prayed for all of us. Jesus wanted us all to be one as the Father and the Son are one. We do well to deeply meditate and consider Jesus’ prayer for us.

The world of Christianity is not defined by its unity; most would imagine Jesus’ purposes in His prayer have been frustrated. There is little doubt Jesus would be disappointed in the numerous divisions and sects within Christianity, all of which developed not out of the manifestations of the fruit of the Spirit but from partaking in the works of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5:19-23).

But to focus on the sectarian divisions of Christianity would miss the point: while Jesus’ prayer may seem to have been frustrated by all the divisions within the faith, the prayer remains active, powerful, and valid for all who are in Christ Jesus!

Jesus’ prayer spoke to the core of what Christianity is supposed to be all about: perichoretic relational unity among the people of God and with God as God maintains perichoretic relational unity within Himself.

When Jesus said the Father was “in” Him and said He was “in” the Father, we best understand Him as speaking in perichoretic terms (John 17:21, 23). “Perichoretic” is the adjectival form of perichoresis, originally a Greek term meaning “mutual interpenetration without loss of distinctive identity.”

Our experience of music represents a great demonstration of perichoresis: when a band plays or a choir sings a song, sound vibrations are generated from the instruments and voices. Those sound vibrations interpenetrate the local environment: we can hear the combined sound of all the instruments and/or voices. But those sound vibrations do not lose their distinctive identity in the process: we can pick out and focus upon the sound coming from a specific instrument or voice. They come together to make the sound of the song, but also maintain their distinctive identities as instruments and/or voices.

The marital relations of men and women can also profitably be understood in perichoretic terms. Jesus spoke of how the two become one flesh, and so they are no longer two but one (Matthew 19:4-6). They do become one, but they remain distinctly the husband and the wife. They thus can mutually interpenetrate but do not lose their distinctive identities.

And so Jesus can help us come to a better understand of the nature of God. The great declaration of the shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 remains undisputed: YHWH is one God. But in the beginning, God declared He would make mankind in “Our” image (Genesis 1:26). The Father is God; the Son is God (John 1:1, 8:58, 10:30), the Spirit is God (2 Peter 1:21); yet God remains “one.” Many have erred in insisting upon God’s unity in personhood, and in so doing fell into the heresies of modalism or Arianism, believing God must be one person with three modes or the Son and the Spirit are lesser divine beings. But the Scriptures never explicitly spoke of God as one in personhood.

Instead, we do best to understand what Jesus has spoken about His relationship with His Father in John 17:20-23 as powerful testimony involving the relational unity of God. God is one, not in person, but in essence, substance, will, purpose, and in relationship. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit mutually interpenetrate one another but do not lose their distinctive identities. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all so unified that we speak of God as He, Him rather than They, Them.

As God shares in perichoretic relational unity, so He has invited people to share in that perichoretic relational unity with Him and with one another, as Jesus prayed for all believers to be one with one another as the Father and the Son are one, and for the believers to be “in” the Son (and the Father and the Spirit) as the Son is “in” the Father (John 17:20-23). Remember how God bore witness to making mankind in “Our” image in Genesis 1:26? Such means humans are made in the image of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: humans are made in relational unity to seek relationships with God his Creator and with his fellow human beings.

And God has most fully realized His purpose in making humanity through Jesus. Paul would speak of God’s eternal purpose realized in Christ Jesus displayed in the church before the powers and principalities in Ephesians 3:10-11. This great demonstration was the reconciliation of all kinds of people in Christ: people who come from different backgrounds, often hostile toward one another in the world, but made one person in Christ, sharing in a faith which brought them together above and beyond all which would divide them in the world. This kind of unity was elusive and countercultural in the first century, and remains so in the twenty-first.

When Christians are one with God in Christ through the Spirit and one with one another, they bear witness to the world how the Father sent Jesus, and of the love of God for Christians as God has loved Jesus (John 17:23, 26). God is love, according to 1 John 4:8, and love provides a second witness of sorts to God’s perichoretic relational unity. If God were indeed one in person, and God is love, such would demand God be the ultimate narcissist (God loves Himself), or prove in need of and dependent upon His creation (in order to give Him something to love and to be loved by). But God need not be either of these, since God is love because the Father loves the Spirit and the Son who loves the Father and the Spirit who loves the Father and the Son. Since God thus abides in love, He wanted to share in that love with “offspring” made in His image, and thus God loves the creation He has made, and loves humanity made in His image. The love of God was most powerfully demonstrated in Jesus’ suffering on our behalf on the cross (cf. Romans 5:6-11). That is the kind of love with which God loves Christians. And that kind of self-sacrificial love should be how Christians love God and one another (1 John 4:7-21).

When Christians love one another not merely in word and pretense, but in truth and deed, they bear witness to who God is and what God is about (cf. John 13:34-35, 1 John 3:16-18). “The world” will always remain hostile to God and His people, but the witness of God’s love for Christians displayed among Christians themselves will prove compelling to some among the world who will want to know that love and share in it. Perhaps we have placed far too much emphasis on marketing and sales techniques and best practices in promoting the Gospel; we would do much better by living in the love of God, sharing in that love with fellow Christians, and allow that love to be the witness to the world, just as Jesus intended in His prayer.

Jesus’ prayer in John 17:1-26 has often been described as His “High Priestly Prayer.” Jesus could not be a priest in the order of Levi or Aaron since He was a Judahite (cf. Hebrews 7:14). But David had spoken of the Messiah as a priest in the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4, and the Hebrews author explained how Jesus fulfilled the role of high priest in that kind of order, since He willingly offered Himself once for all the sins of the world (cf. Hebrews 7:1-10:25). In this perspective, as Jesus was about to suffer, He first made provision in prayer for all those for whom He was about to suffer. But we should never allow the prayer to be understood as aloof and remote on account of its description as the “High Priestly Prayer,” for it is anything but. In it Jesus prayed for the protection of His disciples, and God protected them. In it Jesus prayed for us, that we might be one with God and one another, dwelling in the love of God and sharing love among one another. That prayer will remain effective and powerful for those who truly enjoy perichoretic relational unity with God in Christ through the Spirit and with one another. May we be the people for whom Jesus’ prayer proves effective and powerful, and dwell in relational unity with God and His people for all eternity!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The High Priestly Prayer appeared first on de Verbo vitae.