Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 4

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.

Discipline

Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? But if you do not experience discipline, something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons. Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life? For they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it (Hebrews 12:7-11).

“Discipline” is a word that often conjures up unpleasant experiences, mostly because discipline is normally seen in terms of chastening and correction. While chastening and correction are important elements of discipline, discipline involves much more. Discipline is a critical element in the life of anyone who seeks to serve and please God; without it, as the Hebrew author indicates, we are as illegitimate children, not sons, and therefore not inheritors of the promise (Hebrews 12:8)! Gaining discipline in one’s life is of the utmost importance.

But what is discipline? The Greek word used for discipline, paideia, is defined by Thayer’s as the following:

1. The whole training and education of children (which relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment). It also includes the training and care of the body.
2. Whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, especially by correcting mistakes and curbing passions: instruction which aims at increasing virtue; chastisement, chastening, (of the evils with which God visits men for their amendment).

Discipline, therefore, is more than negative correction and reproof. Discipline involves complete training and education and the development of proper attitudes and habits.

Discipline is most easily understood in terms of children. Fathers are commanded to raise their children in the discipline of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). This discipline does involve correction of disobedient and improper behavior (Proverbs 22:15, 23:13, 29:15). But if the father only corrects negative behavior, he is not properly disciplining his child. Discipline involves training the child on every level (cf. Proverbs 22:6). Discipline also requires the father to encourage the child when he or she obeys and exhibits proper behavior. The father must also instruct the child as to what is proper behavior: to respect authority figures, to be kind to all people, to do what God tells them to do, and so on (1 Peter 2:17, Ephesians 4:32, Romans 6:16-18, etc.). If a father is not providing instruction, encouragement, and correction, the father is not truly disciplining his son or daughter according to the Lord’s will!

Yet discipline is like many other aspects of parenting (and life): it is more easily caught than taught. If parents do not show discipline in their lives, how can they teach their children to be disciplined? They can set forth all the rules, encourage their children when they do what is right, provide correction when they do what is wrong, but what will the children really learn if the parents are themselves undisciplined?

All who believe in Jesus Christ must have discipline themselves. In the sense of instruction, God provides this discipline, as the Hebrew author indicates in Hebrews 12:7-11. We have His instruction within the pages of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and the trials and tribulations of life are designed to correct us and guide us in the right path (James 1:2-4). Suffering means that we are truly children of God, and not illegitimate (Hebrews 12:8, Romans 8:17)! If we are obedient, we hope to obtain the approval of our Lord and the promised inheritance of eternal life (Matthew 25:14-30, 1 Peter 1:3-9). Therefore, just as a father disciplines the son whom he loves, so God disciplines us His children whom He loves.

The goal of discipline is to provide the proper boundaries of life and guide us in our decision making: this is as true for adults as it is for children. How can we do what is right and avoid what is wrong if we have never learned what is right or wrong (Romans 12:9, Hebrews 5:14)? How can we establish proper priorities in our lives if we have never learned how to do so (Matthew 6:33)? If we have never seen these things practiced or modeled for us, how will we learn how to live?

The Bible helps us to understand the need for discipline with the imagery of the runner in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and Hebrews 12:1-2. Excellence in sporting competitions only comes after intense devotion and practice. If a person desires to be a champion runner, he or she must run and train constantly. Their schedules, diet, and sleeping patterns, among other things, must revolve around running. The winner of the race is one who unflinchingly focuses on his or her performance, both before and during the race day. This requires great discipline in the extreme.

This is precisely the point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. Christianity is just like that race. We will only be excellent Christians if we are intensely devoted to Jesus and practice what He says (Galatians 2:20, 1 John 2:6). We must constantly learn about and live the message of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:13-16, 2 Peter 3:18). How we function in our lives in work, family, recreation, and so forth, revolves around our commitment to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-6:9). The believer who is saved is the one who unflinchingly focuses on Jesus Christ and His will throughout his or her life (Matthew 6:33, Matthew 10:22, 1 John 2:1-6). And this is why, as Paul says, we must discipline our bodies and keep them under control (1 Corinthians 9:27)! This is why we must run with endurance the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1-2)!

This discipline cannot be forced upon anyone; it must be the free will decision of the believer to accept such discipline and do the best that they can to live disciplined lives. If a believer has a healthy sense of discipline, it will be that much easier for him to raise his children in the discipline of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). A believer that has good discipline will exhibit self-control and sober-mindedness, and temptations for sin will not be as acute (1 Peter 4:10, James 1:14-15). Moderation, and not excess, will characterize their lives, and they will be known for their generosity and kindness (Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 4:32). Their single-minded focus on God and His purposes will be evident to all, and their example and efforts will likely bear fruit for God’s Kingdom (1 Corinthians 3:5-8).

Discipline is not easy to develop, and only Jesus lived in perfect discipline (Hebrews 5:7-8, etc.). Nevertheless, the more focused we are on Jesus Christ, the more we learn about and strive to cling to the good and to abhor the evil, and the more self-control and sober-mindedness we develop, the better our lives will be as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us accept the discipline of the Lord and live within it!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Discipline appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Epistle of Barnabas

In 1 Peter 1:11-12, the Apostle Peter explained to the Christians of Asia Minor how the prophets were not serving themselves, but in fact the Christians, by setting forth the prophecies which had recently been fulfilled in all God accomplished in Christ. But how far should Christians go in terms of understanding themselves as the ultimate recipients of the Hebrew Bible? An early Christian made a maximalist case against Israel and for the Christians in what has become known as the Epistle of Barnabas.

The Epistle of Barnabas did not come with explicit authorial attribution. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen attributed it to Barnabas (Stromateis 2.7, 2.20, 5.8, 5.10, 6.8; On First Principles 3.2.4; Against Celsus 1.63); while some have attempted to defend the claim, it proves challenging to reconcile the style and substance of the Epistle of Barnabas with what we know about Barnabas the apostle and the associate of Paul. The author would seem to be a Jewish Christian highly influenced by the allegorical interpretive style prevalent in Alexandria, Egypt. Many have interpreted Epistle of Barnabas 16:3-4 as a concern the Jewish people were intending to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem: the presumption the Temple was destroyed but could be rebuilt could only be sustained in the period between the destruction of the Temple at the end of the First Jewish War of 66-70 and the building of a Temple of Zeus on the Temple Mount after the Second Jewish War after 132. Even those who challenge this interpretation of the passage nevertheless concede the Epistle of Barnabas was most likely written between 70 and 130.

Since the Epistle of Barnabas itself did not make any apostolic claim for itself, we should not understand it as either apocryphal or pseudepigraphal. While it lacked many features of Hellenistic letter conventions, the Epistle of Barnabas nevertheless can be understood as an exhortation delivered in epistolary form. The Epistle of Barnabas was intended to encourage early Christians to persevere in their faith in Jesus as Lord by using allegorical forms of interpretation to consider Christians as the real inheritors of the promise and recipients of the covenant rather than Israel according to the flesh.

The Epistle of Barnabas can be read online here. After an introduction communicating the three ordinances of Jesus regarding hope, faith, and love (Epistle of Barnabas 1:1-7), the author would proceed to make his arguments regarding how the Hebrew Bible was really written to Christians, not Israel according to the flesh (Epistle of Barnabas 2:1-17:2). He began with sacrifice, making much of the prophetic denunciations of the sacrificial system and Psalm 51:17, a broken heart and contrite spirit (Epistle of Barnabas 2:1-10). He would then do the same with fasting, making much of Isaiah 58:1-14 (Epistle of Barnabas 3:1-6). The author would then quote Enoch and Daniel regarding understanding the times and the importance of avoiding lawlessness and those who practice lawlessness; he then asserted the Israelites lost their covenant with God at Sinai on account of their transgressions, and the covenant now belongs to Christians in Christ in spiritual ways (Epistle of Barnabas 4:1-14). The author understood Jesus as having come in the flesh to Israel according to the flesh to complete their sins against the prophets God sent them (Epistle of Barnabas 5:1-6:7). The author allegorically considered the new creation in Christ as the “land flowing with milk and honey” promised to Abraham’s descendants (Epistle of Barnabas 6:8-19; cf. Exodus 3:8). In a similar vein, he reckoned Isaac and the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:1-34 as types of Jesus (Epistle of Barnabas 7:1-11). He likewise expanded upon the offering of the red heifer in Numbers 19:1-22, along with later traditions, and understood them in terms of Jesus, the apostles, and the church (Epistle of Barnabas 8:1-7).

The author continued with a discourse regarding circumcision: the author reckoned physical circumcision as abolished, as not unique to Israel since Syrians and Arabs were also circumcised, and looked forward to Jesus and the true circumcision of the heart (Epistle of Barnabas 9:1-8). In Epistle of Barnabas 9:8 the author attempted to make sense of the 318 men in Abraham’s house in Genesis 14:14 in terms of gematria, representing iota, eta, and tau in Greek, which he understood as Jesus and the cross.

The author continued with his allegorizing and spiritualizing interpretation in terms of the dietary restrictions within the Law of Moses as in Leviticus 11:1-47, understanding the laws as exhortations to avoid association with various kinds of people or various kinds of sins, often relying on speculative and biologically inaccurate understanding of the behaviors of certain animals (Epistle of Barnabas 10:1-12).

The author then set forth an elaborate exposition regarding water and the cross: Israel would not receive baptism which would bring remission of sin and Moses would prove to be a type of Christ; the author also made much of how Joshua’s name is the same as that of Jesus (Epistle of Barnabas 11:1-12:11). The author would then make much of how frequently the younger son would receive the inheritance over the older in order to demonstrate how the covenant belongs to Christians and not the Israelites (Epistle of Barnabas 13:1-7); he would again emphasize the transgressions of the Israelites in order to deem them unworthy of the inheritance which was thus given to Christians (Epistle of Barnabas 14:1-9). The author meditated on the Sabbath: he understood the six days of work as six thousand years of the present way of things, with a true rest afterwards; he also condemned participation in any seventh day observance, speaking of how Christians keep the “eighth day” for rejoicing, the day on which Jesus arose from the dead (Epistle of Barnabas 15:1-9). For the final meditation on this theme, the author considered the temple, condemning any focus on a physical building, while understanding the temple in terms of God cleansing and abiding within the Christian (Epistle of Barnabas 16:1-10).

Having explicitly concluded such meditations (Epistle of Barnabas 17:1-2), the author presented another set of teachings which have a strong parallel in the Didache: a presentation of the Two Ways, the way of God and righteousness, and the way of Satan and evil (Epistle of Barnabas 18:1-20:2). The author set forth the way of light and life in Epistle of Barnabas 19:1-12: love and glorify God; hate all which displeases God; maintain humility; avoid sexual immorality; maintain meekness; avoid taking God’s name in vain; love your neighbor more than yourself; do not abort or kill a child after it is born; raise children in the fear of God; avoid greed and envy; do not be duplicitous; prove subject to masters; do not mistreat fellow Christian slaves; provide liberally to others; love those who proclaim the Word of God; remember the day of judgment; seek out fellow Christians; give without hesitation; avoid schism and make peace among Christians; and confess one’s sins. In contrast, the way of Satan was described as full of idolatry, power-seeking, hypocrisy, adultery, murder, pride, malice, the black arts, absence of fear of God, persecutors of good people, hating truth and loving lies, disregarding the widow and orphan, loving vanity, seeking profit, slanderous, murderers of children, corrupters of God’s creation and creatures, oppressing the afflicted, advocating for the wealthy, perpetrating injustice against the poor, and sinful in all things (Epistle of Barnabas 20:1-2). The author concluded his letter by exhorting Christians to follow the ways of Jesus in the Kingdom of God, to be taught of God and for God to give them wisdom, learning, and patience, and for his letter to give them joy (Epistle of Barnabas 21:1-9).

What should we make of the Epistle of Barnabas? It is, without a doubt, a very early testimony to Christian faith and practice. We can understand why those enamored with the interpretive style of Alexandria, like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, would so highly esteem the Epistle of Barnabas, giving it canonical status. Eusebius deemed the work among the “disputed Scriptures,” while likely personally considering it spurious in canonical regard (History of the Church 3.25.3-6, 6.13.6, 6.14.1). A full copy of the Epistle of Barnabas was discovered as part of Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), placed immediately after the canonical New Testament, and right before the Shepherd of Hermas. It can be found in other codices as well, attesting to its popularity if not its canonicity.

The Epistle of Barnabas provides powerful testimony regarding a post-apostolic recognition of the importance of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, Christians assembling on the first day of the week in remembrance of His resurrection, and the kind of moral conduct expected from those who committed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, including the condemnation of abortion and pederasty and the expectation of preferential concern for the poor and oppressed (Epistle of Barnabas 5:1, 6:11, 11:1, 15:9, 19:1-20:2). Moral exhortation given in terms of the “Two Ways” in both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas would suggest such a paradigm was strongly prevalent in the first few generations after the apostles.

As a first or early second century witness to Christianity, the Epistle of Barnabas should thus be appropriately honored and valued. We should tread carefully in our critiques of someone who may themselves have learned of the faith from the apostles and/or their associates, or were only a few generations removed from them.

Nevertheless, the interpretive framework and points of application demonstrated within the Epistle of Barnabas remain troubling. It ultimately proves impossible to truly reconcile the Epistle of Barnabas denying the legitimacy of Israel’s standing in its covenant with God with Paul’s confession of such in Romans 9:4. Paul deftly affirms Israel’s election while persuasively arguing for Jesus as the fulfillment of the story and hope of Israel in Romans 9:1-11:36; the Hebrews author would make much of how Israel would not enter the promised rest in his careful exegesis of Psalm 95:7-11 in Hebrews 3:7-4:13, but in so doing did not deny the legitimacy of the Sabbath rest the Israelites maintained, or their standing within the covenant God made with them. The maximalist argument of the Epistle of Barnabas in completely delegitimizing Israel according to the flesh therefore went well beyond anything Paul, the Hebrews author, or any other New Testament author would confess or affirm, and stands at variance with what God made known through the apostles and their associates.

Furthermore, while Paul found profit in allegorical readings of Scripture, as in Galatians 4:21-31, he never did so at the expense of a plain sense understanding of the text, unlike what the author of the Epistle of Barnabas attempted to do with matters like the dietary restrictions and the Sabbath (Epistle of Barnabas 10:1-12, 15:1-9).

The Epistle of Barnabas represents an important witness to the life of faith in early Christianity. From it we can perceive how at least some Christians were eager to apply the allegorical style of Biblical interpretation to texts of the Hebrew Bible not long after the apostolic age, if even afterward. The Epistle of Barnabas bears witness to how some Christians were willing to make the maximalist argument against Israel according to the flesh, creatively arguing and interpreting to delegitimate Jewish claims of covenantal standing before God, forcefully suggesting Christians were the true inheritors of the promises and participants in God’s covenant. Yet the very fact the Epistle of Barnabas would spend so much time on the subject, and would argue the premise so forcefully, itself bears witness to the discomfort and unease among at least some Christians regarding possible legitimacy being granted to Jewish or Jewish Christian arguments for supremacy regarding the election and covenantal standing of Israel according to the flesh. Likewise, we can perceive from the Epistle of Barnabas the “Two Ways” paradigm of moral exhortation, and the specific kinds of behavioral concerns which persevered in early Christian communities.

While the Epistle of Barnabas thus represents a very early witness regarding the Christian faith, and it represents the arguments being made regarding Israel according to the flesh by some Christians of the age, such does not mean the arguments presented within the Epistle of Barnabas are accurate or faithful to God’s purposes in Christ. We can, and should, perceive how the Epistle of Barnabas makes the maximalist case against the standing of Israel according to the flesh, but we should resist affirming that case as legitimate.

We can still powerfully affirm how Jesus is the fulfillment of the story and hope of Israel without denying Israel’s standing in their covenant with God throughout the period attested in the Hebrew Bible. We can affirm how Israel was to maintain circumcision, dietary restrictions, the Sabbath, and the Tabernacle and then the Temple, all according to what God set forth in the Law of Moses, and also how Jesus has fulfilled the Law of Moses and has thus inaugurated a new covenant in which circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, all foods are clean if partaken with thankfulness before God, Christians come together on the “eighth” day to encourage one another in light of Jesus’ resurrection, and the dwelling place of God is now in His people individually and collectively by means of His Spirit (cf. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 3:14-16, 6:19-20, Galatians 5:6, 1 Timothy 4:1-4). In short, we as Christians have nothing to fear from how Israel according to the flesh was the elect of God with whom He made a covenant; they are our spiritual ancestors and in Christ we have all been able to share in the promise given to Abraham (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Galatians 3:1-4:31). We can profitably understand all God made known in the Hebrew Bible first in terms of His contextual message to Israel at various times along with what the message might have meant for later Israelites, how it may have presaged the coming of Christ and what it might mean in the story of what God accomplished in Christ, and how we can gain from its instruction and wisdom in our faith today.

We do well, therefore, to gain profit from the testimony of the Epistle of Barnabas regarding the moral exhortations to early Christians. We can understand the allegorical readings of the Epistle of Barnabas as making the maximalist argument against the standing of Israel according to the flesh before God while rejecting the excesses of its argumentation and interpretive framework. May we put our trust fully in what God has accomplished in Christ as testified by the apostles and their associates, live accordingly, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Epistle of Barnabas appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Kadesh and Mount Hor

It had no doubt been a long, agonizing forty years in the wilderness.

Israel’s odyssey in the wilderness provided the Hebrew name for the Book of Numbers: bemidbar. The book had begun 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. From Sinai to Kadesh, Israel would rebel time and time again throughout Numbers 10:11-17:13, and the entire generation was consigned to death in the wilderness. At some point in the middle of the second year in the wilderness (ca. 1450 or 1250 BCE, depending on one’s view of the exodus), YHWH gave legislation regarding the priesthood and how to purify those who had come into contact with dead bodies (Numbers 18:1-19:22).

In Numbers 20:1, Moses spoke of how Israel entered the Wilderness of Zin and stayed at Kadesh “in the first month.” Yet Israel was already at Kadesh in Numbers 13:26, and the year was not explicitly identified. Since Numbers 33:38-39 declared Aaron died at Mount Hor in the fifth month of the fortieth year after the exodus, which will be narrated in Numbers 20:22-29, most believe all of the events of Numbers 20:1-29, and in fact Numbers 20:1-36:13, took place in the fortieth year after the exodus. Therefore, the thirty-eight or so years between the second and fortieth years after the exodus took place without any narration provided between Numbers 19:22 and Numbers 20:1; during that time, it is presumed Israel wandered around the wilderness according to the will of YHWH. We can only imagine how Israel, and especially Moses, would have endured that experience, and how it might have influenced the events to come.

Israel has ostensibly returned to Kadesh after their wanderings in preparation for the final movements which would lead them to the eastern edge of Canaan. And there Miriam, older sister of Moses, died and was buried (Numbers 20:1).

Miriam had been there for Moses from the very beginning: she is likely the sister who watched over baby Moses in the basket on the Nile River and secured their mother as his nursemaid (cf. Exodus 2:1-10, 1 Chronicles 6:3). Miriam led the women of Israel in praising YHWH for His deliverance at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20-21). But Miriam also spoke against Moses on account of his Kushite wife and presumed standing she did not actually have, and was struck with a skin disease for seven days (Numbers 12:1-16).

Many directly associate Miriam’s death in Numbers 20:1 with the consequence of her presumption and her own form of rebellion in Numbers 12:1-16. We should probably understand Miriam’s presumption in Numbers 12:1-16 as the reason why Miriam would die in the wilderness and not receive a portion in the land of Canaan, but it would be unwise to make any further association. As we have seen, Miriam’s death came almost forty years after her transgression. She almost certainly lived longer than her brother Moses did, and maybe also her brother Aaron: we are not told how long Miriam lived, but she was at least Moses’ older sister; Aaron would die a few months later at 123, and Moses within the year at 120 (cf. Numbers 33:38-39, Deuteronomy 34:7).

Miriam was therefore not without her faults, and for those faults would die in the wilderness; nevertheless, she lived a long life and would be later remembered and honored as one who helped lead the Israelites out of Egypt (cf. Micah 6:4).

We are not told how Aaron and Moses felt regarding the death of their sister, but perhaps their bitterness in grief might help explain what would come next. At Kadesh, as had happened many times before, the Israelites lacked something (water this time), and, as had happened many times before, the Israelites confronted Aaron and Moses and murmured and complained against them (Numbers 20:2-5). Again, Aaron and Moses prostrated before YHWH at the tent of meeting; YHWH told Moses to take Aaron’s rod and speak to the rock and water would come forth for the Israelites (Numbers 20:6-8).

Moses took Aaron’s rod as YHWH had commanded him, but then did not do much of anything else according to YHWH’s commandment. He denounced the Israelites as rebels, and asked if “we” must bring water out of the rock for them; Moses then struck the rock twice with the staff, and water came forth (Numbers 20:9-11). Yet YHWH was less than pleased: He condemned them as having not trusted sufficiently in YHWH to demonstrate Him as holy before the people, and because of this, they would not enter the land of Canaan, but would also die in the wilderness (Numbers 20:12). The place would be named Meribah, “strife”, since there Israel contended with YHWH, and YHWH was “reckoned as holy” there (Hebrew wayikadesh, featuring wordplay with “Kadesh”; Numbers 20:13).

Numbers 20:2-13 has generated not a little contention and dispute. The story has many associations with Exodus 17:1-7, down to the naming of the place “Meribah”; nevertheless, the two stories maintain significant distinctions, particularly in terms of Moses’ response. Much has been made about exactly how Moses sinned: many want to insist upon how YHWH told Moses to “speak” to the rock, and instead, he struck it twice, contrary to YHWH’s commandment; others want to insist on Moses’ speech, presuming “we” would provide water from the rock, as if Aaron and Moses were on a level of standing with God.

Above all things we should perceive how the text did not present an explicit answer, but left the matter with some ambiguity. There is no need to attempt to identify the “one thing” Aaron and Moses did, since throughout the whole situation they did not honor YHWH as holy. They did not honor YHWH as holy when they cast aspersions on His people as “rebels.” They did not honor YHWH as holy when they presumed to be on God’s level in terms of responsibility for bringing forth water from the rock. They did not honor YHWH as holy in however Moses’ question is understood, since all possible ways of understanding it would cast aspersions on YHWH’s ability or covenant loyalty. And Moses certainly did not honor YHWH as holy by striking the rock twice when he was told to speak to it.

The rock at Meribah in Kadesh was Moses’ one transgression, but it was great and severe. In this situation, the people had not changed: they were speaking and acting as they had previously. Perhaps that was part of why Moses “broke” in this circumstance; he had perhaps expected better from the mostly younger generation before him. Perhaps he was still grieving the loss of his sister. Whatever his motivations, Moses had gone from being the patient advocate for Israel, willing to stand in the gap between YHWH and His people, reminding YHWH of His covenant loyalty and love and the reputation of His Name when He would have struck all Israel down, to now being the danger and threat to Israel. It is Moses, not YHWH, who spoke of Israel as rebels. It is Moses, not YHWH, who threatened Israel at Kadesh. And, therefore, Moses and Aaron were also consigned to death in the wilderness for their own form of rebellion against the ways and purposes of YHWH.

Yet even in the midst of this presumption and disobedience, YHWH provided for His people. Even though Moses spoke presumptuously and struck the rock, the rock still provided abundant water for the Israelites and their animals. God provides for His people, even when things were not done entirely according to YHWH’s purpose and plan.

Despite Aaron and Moses’ disobedience, it was still YHWH’s intention for the Israelites to move into position on the Jordan River. Since the Israelites would not enter Canaan from the south, the next best option would be to follow the “King’s Highway” which would pass through the land of Edom; to this end Moses sent petitions to the king of Edom to allow Israel to pass through (Numbers 20:14-17). The king of Edom refused; Moses tried again; the Edomites made a show of force at their border, compelling the Israelites to find a way around the territory of Edom (Numbers 20:18-21).

Some try to make much regarding various perceived infelicities in the interactions between Moses and the Edomites, but we best understand it all in terms of diplomatic niceties. We should note the text never suggested YHWH instructed Moses to make this appeal: perhaps it was God’s purposes but not revealed as such, or perhaps Moses was proving presumptuous even in making the appeal.

Nevertheless, the situation did represent an Edomite affront against Israel his brother. We do well to remember how the last interaction between Edom and Israel went: Esau sent men and then met Jacob his brother himself, and greeted him warmly; nevertheless, Jacob would not go and spend time with Esau (Genesis 32:1-33:16). The apocryphal Book of Jubilees detailed a later war between the forces of Esau and Jacob, with Jacob’s forces ascendant; whether this kind of battle actually took place or not, the bad blood and rivalry between Edom and Israel would persist throughout the entire Biblical period. The Edomites clearly proved very skeptical and suspicious of Israel; if nothing else, perhaps the Edomites did not want to provide any material assistance toward Israel obtaining their inheritance in Canaan.

And so Israel traveled around Edom and reached Mount Hor (Numbers 20:22). Traditionally Mount Hor has been associated with Jebel Nebi Harun although some favor Jebel Madara. There YHWH declared to Aaron and Moses how Aaron would be gathered to his ancestors (Numbers 20:23-24). Moses, Aaron, and Eleazar ben Aaron went up the mountain; the priestly garments were removed from Aaron and placed upon Eleazar, Aaron died, and Moses and Eleazar returned to the people who then mourned for forty days (Numbers 20:25-29).

Aaron had been the strength and support for Moses throughout his time of leadership over the Israelites; Aaron would help Moses speak and act before Pharaoh and Israel (cf. Exodus 4:13-17). Aaron had capitulated to the people and made a golden calf and called it YHWH, and pathetically lied in order to justify his behavior (Exodus 32:1-6, 21-25). He also went along with Miriam’s jealousy and presumptuousness in Numbers 12:1-16. Neither of these experiences were given as reasons for his condemnation in the wilderness: only his association with Moses in the recent matter of Meribah (Numbers 20:24).

As with Miriam, so with Aaron: he had his faults, but he also lived longer than Moses did, reaching the age of 123 according to Numbers 33:38-39 (compared to Moses’ 120, Deuteronomy 34:7). Aaron was the first high priest in Israel, and all future high priests would be known as descendants of Aaron. Yet in his death he may well have become a pathetic figure: there is a strong possibility we should understand the removal of his garments in Numbers 20:26-28 as a form of humiliation not done entirely voluntarily on the part of Aaron. Aaron would thus forever be honored, but his failures and weaknesses should not be entirely forgotten.

We can only imagine how Moses felt during this forty day period. He was now alone among his family and perhaps even his generation. He had been condemned to die in the wilderness after he had turned on the people and had dishonored YHWH’s holiness. Israel had suffered reverse after reverse as they had endured the wilderness. Yet YHWH was faithful to Israel and all the promises He made to the fathers. Israel may have reached the nadir of its wilderness experience, but they were on the way to Canaan. May we learn from the experience of Israel in the wilderness, prove faithful to God and honor Him and His holiness in all things, and obtain the resurrection of life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Kadesh and Mount Hor appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Partners in God’s Grace

I thank my God every time I remember you. I always pray with joy in my every prayer for all of you because of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. For I am sure of this very thing, that the one who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. For it is right for me to think this about all of you, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel all of you became partners in God’s grace together with me. For God is my witness that I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:3-8).

The depth and intensity of the relationship between Paul and Philippian Christians is apparent from the outset.

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). Exordia in letters would frequently include a message of thanksgiving and a desire for the good health and welfare of the recipient, and sometimes some kind of introduction of the purpose of the letter. Paul would often use the exordium of a letter to set the tone for what would come afterward. He would give thanks and testify to his prayers for the recipients of all his letters save the churches in Galatia, in so doing testifying to his deep concern about the latter’s condition (cf. Galatians 1:1-9). To the Romans, Paul testified regarding his great desire to see them, attempting to ingratiate himself with an audience he had not yet met in their place (cf. Romans 1:9-15). Paul commended the Thessalonians for their steadfastness in the faith (1 Thessalonians 1:4-10, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-4). Paul’s exordium in his letter to the Philippians followed this same pattern, bearing witness to how deeply he loved and related to the Philippian Christians and reinforcing their joint participation in Paul’s work for the Lord Jesus Christ.

All translations understand Paul expressing his thankfulness for the Philippian Christians every time he remembered them in Philippians 1:3. The Greek could be read as if Paul expressed thankfulness for their remembrance of him. While Paul would certainly be thankful for how the Philippian Christians gave thought for him and prayed for him and supported him, and he would certainly do so in the next few verses, the translations have made the right decision. Paul wanted the Philippian Christians to know how much he appreciated them: he gave thanks for them every time he remembered them and prayed joyfully in all his prayers for their koinonia in the gospel from the first day until the moment of writing (Philippians 1:3-5). Koinonia in Greek means something shared in common: it can refer to community and joint participation in the faith, but also can refer to joint participation through financial resources. In this context, we have no need to choose: the Philippian Christians jointly participated in the faith and through financial resources for Paul in the gospel. But we should not read the text so spiritually we miss out on the material resources also included in his thanksgiving. Paul’s exordium thus began with a strong emphasis on how thankful he was for the Philippian Christians, and how their memory and joint participation was truly a joy for him, even, or perhaps especially, in hard times.

Paul provided assurance for the Philippian Christians: he was confident God had begun a good work in them, and would perfect that work until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Paul nicely balanced the work God was already doing with recognition the work has not been completed and more can be done, and all of it by the power of God and entrusted to God. The Philippian Christians were doing well, but the journey was not yet done.

Paul felt it was right to feel this way about the Philippian Christians: they were in his heart since they became sugkoinonous, sharers or partners with Paul in the grace of God with him in his imprisonment and his defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7).

At no point during his exordium did Paul mention the gift and support which the Philippian Christians had provided for him; his explicit word of thanks would only come toward the end of the letter (Philippians 4:15-20). Yet even if the gift was not explicitly mentioned, its existence and what it meant for the relationship between Paul and the Philippian Christians lay underneath Paul’s thanksgiving and introductory message in Philippians 1:3-8.

By providing such material financial support, along with the presence and thus service of Epaphroditus, Paul could relate to the Philippian Christians as fellow sharers in his imprisonment and his work in the gospel. The Philippian Christians were not actually imprisoned with him, nor were they present with Paul in his preaching and teaching; but their support of Paul during these experiences meant they would be reckoned by God in Christ as jointly sharing in them with him.

Paul mentioned his “bonds” or “chains” here for the first time; he would go on to speak about it in greater detail in Philippians 1:12-17. At this point he was most likely under some kind of house arrest and not actually in a prison in Rome; nevertheless, to remain in such a condition was still shameful in the eyes of society. Philippians in general were quite proud of their status as a Roman colony, and the arguments which were leveled against Paul and Silas in Acts 16:19-21 bore witness to their desire to be seen as fully compliant with Roman law and cultural standards. Materially supporting a prisoner would have likely been seen as scandalous in Philippi, and so the Philippian Christians’ willingness to support Paul despite such imprisonment testified strongly to their faith in Jesus and love for Paul.

Paul considered the Philippian Christians to be fellow sharers in the charis, or grace, of God. Certainly Paul understood all of them as having received the grace of God displayed in Jesus: His vicarious suffering for the forgiveness of their sins and the justification by grace through faith they could never deserve (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10). But we should also be open to understanding Paul as meaning the grace of God as God’s gifts which would extend beyond faith and salvation in Jesus. The Philippian Christians supported Paul through all he was enduring, and so the Philippian Christians were sharing in all the gifts God was giving to Paul throughout what he endured.

Paul then made appeal to God as a witness regarding his profoundly felt longing for them in Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:8). Paul normally did not make use of such a strong rhetorical move as to invoke God’s witness! He longed for them in the splangchnois of Christ Jesus: the splangchnoi are often translated as “bowels,” but most likely referred less to the intestines and more to the liver and related organs in the chest. The term proves beautifully vivid and visceral: it bears witness to the experience of great feeling in the chest either in sympathy for someone or to share in the presence of another, and the ancients believed these organs were the seat of such emotions on account of it.

Paul thus very much set the tone for his letter to the Philippians in Philippians 1:3-8. In the midst of great distress and trial, the Philippian Christians had supported Paul and were there for him. He wanted to make sure they knew just how much he loved them and proved thankful for them. They enjoyed the honor of sharing with him in the grace of God in Christ; whatever benefits Paul would gain from all he endured would also redound to the benefit of the Philippian Christians. Paul no doubt intended for the Philippian Christians to feel even more connected to him and his work through his testimony about these matters.

Can we relate at all to the relationship between Paul and the Philippian Christians? Christians and churches who provide support to those who are working to advance the Gospel do well to see themselves as joint participants and sharers in their work. When Christians go through distress and trials, they should be able to maintain the comfort and assurance their fellow Christians are there for them and support them. We should be thankful for all those Christians and churches who are there for us and support us in good times and bad, and make sure they know we are thankful for them. Do we profoundly yearn to be with fellow Christians, either near or far, as Paul desired to be with the Christians in Philippi?

We can gain great appreciation and encouragement from how Paul gave thanks for the Philippian Christians in Philippians 1:3-8. May we jointly share in God’s grace and the work of God in Christ. And may we also maintain a similar confidence to Paul: that God has begun a good work in us and will bring it to perfection on the day of Christ Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Partners in God’s Grace appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Eating with Sinners and Publicans

Those of us who profess to be the followers of Christ are called upon to engage in introspection every once in awhile (2 Corinthians 13:5). It is good to ask ourselves: what are we supposed to be about? Who are we out there trying to help?

In theory, we are out there to try to help all people, according to what the Scripture says (1 Timothy 2:1-4). But are we, really?

Let us hear the example of our Lord.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, “Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?”
But when he heard it, he said, “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this meaneth, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13).

It has always proven easy to cast aspersions against the Pharisees and their less than ideal behaviors.

Yet how often have we missed the “Pharisee” in ourselves?

Is it not likely that if we were there we would ask the same thing as the Pharisees did?

Let us explore this passage in more depth.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples .

Notice those with whom Jesus has association: sinners. He has association with those who would need Him the most. We can see the type of result that this association would bring from the example of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:2-10:

And behold, a man called by name Zacchaeus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, “Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must abide at thy house.”
And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, “He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.”
And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold.”
And Jesus said unto him, “To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Again, would we be joyful with Zacchaeus or be one who would scowl and despise Jesus for being seen with such a sinner? After all, wouldn’t Jesus “have the appearance of approving evil” by being with a sinner?

Jesus was about saving that which was lost. To save the lost, He had to be around tax collectors and whores. He did that which was socially frowned upon and suffered elite chastisement for doing so; but, for Jesus, it was worth the while.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, “Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?” (Matthew 9:11).

Let us not believe that the Pharisees were asking an innocent question; they were trying to trap Jesus yet again. How could the Son of God be with such “terrible” people?

Why do the Pharisees have that attitude? They likely felt their righteousness was secure. To be with the outcasts of society would mean defilement in their eyes, and they had to be these holy people.

While we have no right to such pretensions, how often do they, in truth, make up who we are?

Whether we like it or not, our churches have become gentrified to some degree or another. Our churches tend to be made up of socially upstanding people who have attained at least some level of “righteous standing” within their communities. Churches tend to be concentrated in the suburbs, with a scattering of churches in rural areas. Yet what of major metropolitan areas? What attitudes exist regarding those metropolitan areas? And how many churches can be found in them? Yet what do we see in the New Testament?

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God, (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Who made up the church in Corinth? There were at least some who would be very easily frowned upon in our society and in churches. Thieves. Homosexuals. Drunkards. You know, “real sinners”. We, of course, are not nearly those kind of sinners; even though we maintain the pretense of not maintaining a hierarchy of sins, we almost inevitably make a hierarchy of sins in our minds and our “venial” sins never quite compare to these “monstrosities.” Well, if you were in Corinth in the first century, you would be having association with those former “monsters” who still were working things out. Do you think that when Paul came to preach to them that they had already ceased stealing, or participating in same sex sexual relations, or stopped drinking? Far from it. No, they were sinners who heard the Word and were convicted and repented of their sins and were baptized. Then they worked on getting rid of the sin in their lives. They were sinners. They were cleansed in Christ. In the end, they are really no different than us.

My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say,
“Sit thou here in a good place;”
and ye say to the poor man, “Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool;”
Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? (James 2:1-5).

While it may be uncomfortable to consider, how many times have we acted like the kind of church and people James here condemned?

How many times will we concentrate our evangelism efforts on people we imagine are “like us,” and feel less than comfortable with participating in evangelism endeavors in the parts of town on the other side of the proverbial tracks?

How many times will we use the arbiter of “giving potential” to in any way influence how we promote the Gospel?

How was it actually done in the New Testament?

But when he heard it, he said, “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick” (Matthew 9:12).

The response of Jesus should really be impressed upon us.

Who are the people who convert?

The ones who know that they are spiritually lost and need the Savior.

Where are we going to find these people?

Well, look in the Bible.

Where did the Apostles find them?

Among the Jews? Generally not; they were “whole”.

Among the Gentiles? Absolutely. In city after city they found people who were Gentiles, heathen, idol-worshipping, orgy-participating pagans, who recognized in the message of God that they were wrong and needed redemption. They are the ones who converted. They did not become holy, come into a church, and then get baptized. They heard the message of God while still in their sins, recognized the darkness that pervaded their lives, and immediately sought to make it right.

And not just any Gentiles. Mostly among the slaves and the poor. The first Christian centuries were marked by a significant proportion of converts from the lowest classes. For generations such people had been considered too insignificant or unworthy of the regard of the divine. The Gospel was truly good news for them, because they did matter before God, and they could find identity and privileges in Christ which were denied to them in the world.

But go ye and learn what this meaneth, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:13).

How do we normally interpret this verse? Normally we take Jesus’ declaration of people being righteous at face value and perceive in His statement that “only” those who are sick require Jesus.

But wait a second. Who is righteous? “There is none, no, not one” (Romans 3:10).

Surely Paul and Jesus are not contradicting one another, are they?

When returning to this passage we should be struck now by the sharp barb that Jesus has just thrust toward the Pharisees.

What does it mean that Jesus does not call the righteous?

It does not mean that there actually are people righteous apart from the blood of Christ; it means that Jesus can do nothing with those who see and proclaim themselves as righteous.

After all, as it is written,

And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought: “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, ‘God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.’
I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14).

Who is the one who goes to the hospital or to see a physician?

The one who is sick or is healthy?

The one who is sick, of course.

But what if the person who is healthy is, in reality, sick, but is either ignorant of his illness or denies that the illness exists?

What of him?

We can read from the New Testament how the vast majority of the Jews were these “righteous” people. They certainly felt righteous. They were God’s Chosen People, after all. They were better than the Gentiles, and they knew it. The only problem was that they had sin just like the Gentiles, and the Gentiles were at least willing to humble themselves and repent.

Consider the following:

And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath. Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed.
And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, ‘I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, That thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth.'”
And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spread abroad throughout all the region (Acts 13:42-49).

In Acts 13:13-41, just before this citation Paul had preached a riveting gospel lesson regarding how Jesus was the Christ. Notice how the Jews were more than willing to hear at first and urged him to return the next Sabbath. Yet when all those nasty Gentiles heard of the preaching and came out also, the Jews in their sanctimony were jealous and began speaking against Paul. Paul preaches to the Gentiles and they willingly hear the Word of Life.

Substitute “Christians” for “Jews” and “godless heathen Americans” for “Gentiles” and see how it sounds.

How many times will Christians continually, in truth, work against the word of Life because they are convinced of their own righteousness?

How many Christians, if you asked them if they were “righteous” or “sinners”, would say “righteous” without really thinking about it?

We inculcate the message of righteousness from all of our encouragement in the assemblies, and it is certainly something for which we should strive. Yet in all of our striving toward righteousness we must remember that we are indeed sinners and would have no prayer of redemption without the blood of Christ. Jesus came to call the sinners, not the “righteous”: the “righteous” were too blinded by themselves to see the truth in Him.

Brethren, do we make up the church of Christ or do we make up the “church of the Pharisees”? The church of Christ, in the New Testament, can be described as a spiritual hospital for recovering sinners. The church of Christ, in the New Testament, represents all the people who finally figured out that there was no profit in sin like there is in Jesus and in all humility took on the name of the Crucified One.

The “church of the Pharisees” is a social club, a group of people who are righteous and know it, and do not want to be defiled by associating with all those nasty sinners and Gentiles out there. To associate with those sinners and Gentiles would mean that others might think that they were participating in their sin, and that it was obvious that they crossed lines of social “decency” that just should not be crossed. Those heathens should figure out on their own how nasty their ways are and then become righteous, and then maybe they can be a part of the social club of the “church of the Pharisees.” But most will never reach such levels, but so it goes. They were never really worthy of God’s love and concern, were they?

This kind of thing is nothing new among the people of God. The prophets condemned these very same attitudes in Israel.

God’s people perpetuating social injustice has always been abominable before Him. God has always sought for His people to do right to others and to help others.

Let us be honest with ourselves: we are not entirely righteous. We all are still recovering sinners. We, in our humility, should welcome in anyone who wants to be freed from the bonds of sin and begin working toward righteousness.

Perhaps we need to look at the church more in terms of a spiritual hospital and go out to bring in the sick. Right now, however consciously or otherwise, we have latent expectations for people to come to us already cleansed and whole, but only Jesus can cleanse and make whole.

We cannot expect people to make their life right with God and then convert: or, if nothing else, we should not give people the impression that to be a part of the church you have to already be righteous.

It is high time to remove any veneers we may like having of our own righteousness, lest we be condemned in the same manner as the Pharisees, not understanding how God “desires mercy, not a sacrifice”. If we are going to wear the name of the Crucified One and profess His Way, then we must recognize that He calls sinners, not the “righteous”. Let us strive diligently to call sinners to repentance, and prove ourselves to be sinners living in repentance!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Eating with Sinners and Publicans appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel and the Creed

The gospel, the rule of faith, the creed: such was the transition in emphasis as Christendom developed. But what happens to the Gospel when so much emphasis is placed on the creed?

In the beginning the Apostles were charged by Jesus to go out and “proclaim the gospel,” the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, to every creature (Mark 16:15). The gospel would first be proclaimed among Jewish people who already had a deep understanding of the God of heaven and the hope He extended to Israel (e.g. Acts 2:1-41).

Soon after the gospel would also go out among the people of the nations. The very first to hear it were “god fearers” who had already gained some understanding of the God of Israel and His purposes (e.g. Cornelius, Acts 10:1-47). But it would not take long before the gospel would be preached and accepted by people from a thoroughly Greco-Roman background for whom the idea of one true God, the resurrection, and the like was quite different than anything they had learned or experienced before.

The Greco-Roman world was both thoroughly pagan and philosophical. The Apostles were quite aware of these things, yet still insisted on emphasizing Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, even appealing to amenable statements from Greek authors themselves, as Paul did before the Athenians in Acts 17:22-31.

When at least some among the Corinthian Christians cast aspersions on the possibility of the resurrection of the dead, Paul exhorted them with significant and severe emphasis on how critical the resurrection of the dead was to the truth of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. The idea of resurrection in general was not the gospel, but the gospel was only true if Jesus is risen from the dead, and so without the resurrection of the dead, the gospel cannot be true, and the Apostles were liars (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

John would be confronted by a similar challenge: some began suggesting Jesus never actually came in the flesh, but only seemed to be human. John therefore warned all the Christians who would listen to him: those who would not confess Jesus in the flesh were antichrist, and they should have no association with such people (1 John 2:18-24, 4:1-3, 2 John 1:6-9). The humanity of Jesus had previously been presumed and taken for granted as part of the story of Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection; now that some were challenging it, John insisted on powerfully affirming it and confessing it, for if Jesus was never truly human, He never really lived as a human, thus never really died, and therefore could not have been raised from the dead, thus invalidating the entire gospel. Explicit confession was demanded since many such antichrists would remain within Christian assemblies and attempted to seduce people away from the truth of the Gospel to the distortion they were peddling (cf. Jude 1:3-16).

These challenges and tendencies would only intensify and multiply in the generations after the Apostles. Docetic denials of Jesus’ humanity would expand and multiply into gnostic speculations regarding secret knowledge which suggested a very different understanding of reality than the one encoded within the gospel of Jesus Christ. Questions would soon arise regarding the identity, nature, and relationship of and among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Questions even arose regarding which sources should be considered authentic and authoritative in order to best understand the gospel and the truth of the faith.

In light of all these challenges, early Christians would understandably make appeal to apostolic instruction: on the whole, they affirmed the general contours of what would become the New Testament canon, they appealed to those people who had been taught by the Apostles, and then to the churches which maintained continuity in all which the Apostles taught, and they would begin insisting on what was often called the “rule” or “rule of faith.”

Perhaps originally derived from an “analogy” or “measure” of faith in Romans 12:6, the “rule of faith” was never officially enshrined with specific wording determined by some kind of church council, but represented a summary or statement of core, fundamental Christian beliefs. At times, an explication of the “rule of faith” reasonably looked like a laying out of the gospel (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10); at other times, the “rule of faith” looked more like the later creedal formulas placing more emphasis on the nature and identity of God (e.g. Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 6).

In western Christendom, the “rule of faith” would develop into the “Old Roman Symbol,” which itself would develop into the so-called “Apostles’ Creed” in the fifth century (thus long after the Apostles), which has since become canonized and enshrined in many Christian denominations.

The “Apostles’ Creed” was framed in terms of affirming and confessing belief, yet its substance remains predominantly the gospel, centering Jesus the Son of God, who was born, suffered, died, was raised, ascended, is Lord, and will return.

But the “Apostles’ Creed” also included other aspects of the faith to be confessed: God the Creator, the Holy Spirit, the universal church, the communion of the saints, the resurrection of the body, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. All of these things remain true and have their importance, but they themselves are not the gospel.

As the story shifts into the period of Constantine and afterwards, the truth of the gospel itself, as the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus, at best seems to be taken for granted as true. The arguments which arose at this time centered on the nature of God in Christ and the Spirit: the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the relationship between the human and divine natures of Jesus.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds, and the Chalcedonian Definition, would become the authoritative creedal determinations of all of these disputes.

These documents also display their origins: they are dogmatic treatises designed to affirm definitions and anathematize alternative definitions. They shift the emphasis away from what God has done in Christ toward who is God and Jesus.

We have no quarrel, for instance, with understanding God as three hypostases (“persons”) in one ousia (“being”). But God as three hypostases in one ousia is not the gospel. Jesus never explicitly said anything of the sort; Peter, Paul, John and the other apostolic witnesses never bore explicit witness to it; the gospel was proclaimed, and Christians obeyed the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for many years without feeling any need to explicitly confess such a formulation. For that matter, Trinitarian theology did not come forth fully formed from the beginning: it was the result of all the various arguments, challenges, and questions, and the confession and recognition of how any other alternative came into conflict with some aspect of what God revealed in Christ and in Scripture. If the arguments and disputes had never arisen, these kinds of elaborations may never have proven necessary; and yet the gospel could still be preached, and people could still become obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ to His honor and glory.

Creeds developed for sectarian purposes: defining who was in and who was out based on what they were willing to affirm and confess regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They were not designed to be re-statements of the gospel to teach people the truth about the gospel. They are the codified result of arguments in an attempt to enforce uniformity and universality in the faith.

And this presents the challenge of the creedalization of the gospel: for as long as there has been Christendom, the gospel of Christ has been understood less in terms of what God has done in Christ and what we are supposed to do about it and much more in terms of a series of propositions which should be affirmed after long and involved argumentation and disputes.

It would be difficult enough if such only involved the propositions involving the nature of the Trinity and of Christ; the tendency has also affected the way people understand the gospel itself. “Jesus lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended, is now Lord, and will return again” is treated like a proposition to intellectually affirm, discuss, and dispute, just like “God is three hypostases in one ousia.”

No one probably intended to diminish or reduce the emphasis on the gospel’s intent to transform the life of those who affirm its truth. If anything, Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return became taken for granted in most of these discussions.

However intended or unintended, the gospel has become primarily understood as truth propositions to affirm or deny. Such is how we can have so many people who will affirm with their words how they believe Jesus lived, died, was raised, ascended, is Lord, and will return, but their lives do not bear witness to the truth of any of it. Such might be the unintended result of shoving the gospel into the creed and making the creed paramount, but it is no less of the result.

We have no quarrel with the majority of the substance of the creeds. We have no trouble affirming as true God as the Creator, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in perichoretic relational unity, three hypostases yet one ousia. We should at times teach on the matters of argument and dispute regarding the Godhead and the nature of Jesus so people do not fall into the ancient heresies. In fact, we can even seek to teach the gospel explicitly in a small-o orthodox trinitarian theological and Chalcedonian Christological understanding.

But the creed is not the gospel. The gospel was preached, and people believed it and entrusted themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, before the creedal formulations. The power of the gospel has not been enhanced by shifting the emphasis to the creeds and insisting only on creedal formulations of the gospel; quite the contrary. We do well to affirm truths regarding the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but always appropriately emphasize the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus as the Christ as the good news which should thoroughly transform the lives of all who hear and accept it!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

I Have Conquered the World

Jesus would soon pray and then afterward be delivered into the hands of the authorities. What words of Jesus would be left to ring in the ears of the eleven disciples? “I have conquered the world.”

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 knew His time to suffer, die, be raised, and ascend to the Father was coming very soon (John 13:31-32); His disciples did not, and throughout John 13:1-17:26, Jesus sought to prepare them for what was about to occur.

And so Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, and explained to them how they should follow His example and humbly serve one another (John 13:1-17). Jesus spoke of His imminent betrayal and sent Judas Iscariot out in John 13:18-30. Jesus, focusing on the eleven remaining disciples, would then begin a discourse in John 13:31 which would conclude with His “High Priestly Prayer” in John 17:1-26. He began this discourse by emphasizing how God would be glorified in the Son of Man, and it was for them to love one another as He had loved them (John 13:31-35). They could not yet go where He was going, but He went to prepare a place for them: less about spatial distance, and more about relational distance, for Jesus would suffer and die to reconcile them to God, and would not leave them as orphans but give them the Spirit of God (John 14:1-31). Jesus illustrated His relationship with the disciples in terms of a vine and its branches (John 15:1-8). Jesus welcomed the disciples as His friends for whom He would suffer and die (John 15:9-17). The disciples would experience hostility and persecution in the world (John 15:18-16:11). Jesus would now conclude this extensive discourse with John 16:12-33.

Jesus had many other things which He wanted to teach His disciples, but they could not yet receive them; He assured His disciples how the Spirit of truth would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-13). The Spirit would not speak by His own authority, but would speak whatever He would hear from the Father and the Son; in this way He would glorify Jesus (John 16:13-15).

We can get an idea of what Jesus intended by considering all the things which He commanded and taught the disciples by means of the Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles: how the Gospel would be proclaimed, the ingathering of Gentiles, etc. But at this particular moment, they would have no framework in which to understand such things. They would have to see the work of God in Christ play out in His death, resurrection, and ascension.

So it remains in our lives of faith. Certain things we can only come to appreciate and value after we gain a certain level of understanding and/or experience. There are some things we think we know at a given moment, but only truly come to appreciate better and more deeply after time and experience.

But should we expect the Spirit to make known to us things which those before us did not know or understand? We must remember Jesus was speaking to His eleven disciples and gave these promises to assure them how they would come to a fuller understanding of all Jesus wanted to say to them. Jesus would provide this revelation by means of His Spirit to those disciples in His good time. We have no good reason to believe anything needs to be added to the witness regarding Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return beyond what already was made known by the Apostles through the Spirit.

Jesus then reiterated a statement He had made to many times before, but now with an addition: the disciples would not see Jesus any longer in a little while, but after a little while would see Him again (John 16:16; cf. John 7:33, 12:35, 13:33, 14:19). We hear again from the disciples for the first time since John 14:22; they are flustered and confused by Jesus’ statement, yet none has the temerity to directly ask Him about it (John 16:17-18). Jesus well perceived their anxiety, and expanded somewhat on His statement: they would lament and mourn, but the world would rejoice, but their sadness would turn into joy (John 16:20). Jesus compared the situation to a woman giving birth: she has great suffering and pain during labor, but after she is given her child, the joy of that experience overwhelms the memory of the pain and suffering she has just experienced (John 16:21). Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:14 regarding that moment: the disciples would first have sorrow, but then they would see Him again, and they would have joy which could not be taken from them (John 16:22). They would not ask Jesus for anything at that moment (as time would tell, out of stupefied astonishment), but the Father would give them whatever they asked for in Jesus’ name (John 16:23-24).

Jesus understood His language was not the clearest; in the future, He would speak plainly about the Father (John 16:25). The Father Himself loved the disciples since they loved Jesus and believed in Him (John 16:26-27). Jesus came from the Father and entered into the world; He was going to leave the world and return to the Father (John 16:28, which can be understood in terms of Jesus as the Heavenly Stranger).

The disciples grabbed ahold of Jesus final statement: they could understand how He could return from whence He had come, and they confess how Jesus knew everything, had no need to have anyone ask Him anything, and had come from God (John 16:29-30).

Jesus proved incredulous: did they really believe (John 16:31)? He prophesied their imminent dispersal, leaving Jesus alone (John 16:32). Yet Jesus was not truly alone, since the Father was with Him (John 16:32). He then provided His final statement: He spoke such things so they might have peace in Him; they would have trouble and suffering in the world, but they should take courage, for Jesus conquered the world (John 16:33).

Jesus thus forecast how the next few days would go. Today we have the benefit of knowing what was about to take place; Jesus’ disciples did not. A lot can change in a forty-eight-hour period, and you can get yourself in a world of hurt and trouble within that period of time. The disciples would experience profound sadness and then unbelievable joy; perhaps some of Jesus’ former words would have come to mind during these moments to strengthen and sustain them.

But their suffering and anguish could not compare to what Jesus was about to experience. The eleven would all scatter as it had been prophesied; and, in truth, it was for their own good, for doubtless there could have been crosses waiting for them as well if they stood with Jesus. They would suffer for His Name in due time.

Yet, as Jesus powerfully affirmed, He would not really be alone. The Father would always be with Him. He could do no other and remain one God in perichoretic relational unity. Some have become far too enamored with a particular mechanism of atonement and have extended it beyond all reason, suggesting Jesus was alienated from the Father while on the cross. When Jesus cried out about being forsaken, He appealed not merely to Psalm 22:1, but all of Psalm 22:1-31 (cf. Matthew 27:46); it well spoke to what He felt, but God had not actually abandoned Jesus in that moment. In becoming our sin offering, Jesus would be made most holy, not abominably defiled (2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Leviticus 6:24-30).

Jesus would indeed suffer greatly, but in doing so, He would conquer the world. He would suffer evil without responding in kind; by thus absorbing the evil, He overcame it, and would be vindicated in His resurrection!

John 16:33 represented the conclusion of the discourse between Jesus and the eleven disciples. John 17:1-26 would feature Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer”; in John 18:1, narrative action would resume, leading to Jesus’ betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection. Thus the last words of Jesus’ instruction which would ring in the ears of His disciples was John 16:33, and we can also gain much from them. In Christ the world can never really be a comfortable place. We will have trial and tribulation here. But we can take courage because Jesus has conquered the world. And we can overcome in and with Him if we suffer with Him so we might be glorified with Him (cf. Romans 8:17-39). May we take courage in Christ and obtain the victory in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post I Have Conquered the World appeared first on de Verbo vitae.