Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 41

Rules, People, and Judgmentalism

Ever since the beginning of mankind there have been rules. For the vast majority of time people have broken those rules. How people view the rules, people who break the rules, and their own violation of the rules looms large in religious discourse today as it always has. The New Testament gives Christians three different models: the Pharisees, the Gnostics, and Jesus.

The Pharisees are famous for their high valuation of the Law God gave to Moses; they were very much fans of the rules (Matthew 23:1-2). They sought to add a hedge around God’s laws, the Torah, to make it even more difficult to violate the rules; they sought to observe many rules with exact precision (Matthew 23:23). Yet in their zeal for the Law they set God’s people at naught. They condemned masses of people as unwashed sinners inferior to them in standing before God, since they had come to learn of the rules of holiness and sanctity (cf. John 9:34). They had difficulties separating out the rules from their interpretation and understanding of how the rules should work, and in the process condemned good, right, and holy deeds as somehow contrary to God’s purposes (e.g. Luke 13:10-17). They proved blind to their own hypocrisy: they commanded others to do mighty things they themselves would not do, violated commands on account of all the traditions and “hedges” they had built, and in their emphasis on little things missed the weightier matters of justice, faithfulness, and mercy (Matthew 15:1-9, 23:1-3, 23-24).

The Pharisees proved extremely zealous for God’s rules; in the process, however, they prioritized God’s rules over God’s people, and missed His important exhortation: God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). A major aspect of God’s rules involved loving one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18). Beyond all this, what if God privileged His rules over His people? All of His people would be condemned as transgressors (Romans 3:1-20)! Jesus rightly chastised and condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and judgmentalism (Matthew 23:1-36).

Towards the end of the New Testament period a heresy developed that would later be known as Gnosticism. Gnostics tended to cast aspersions on the goodness of the creation, suggesting it was really a cosmic mistake, and envisioned salvation as freedom from the constraints and corruptions of the physical realm. Gnostics thus aspired to develop and cultivate the pure soul: some were moved to asceticism, denying all bodily desires (cf. Colossians 2:20-23), while others, believing the works of the flesh had nothing to do with the soul, committed whatever sensual acts they desired. John, Peter, and Jude have explicit condemnation for these latter types who would turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, acting as if sin was not really a thing or at least was not a thing that affected the select few (cf. 1 John 1:7-10, 3:1-4:6, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Jude 1:3-16). These Gnostics, therefore, were quite the opposite of the Pharisees: to them there was no real sin, no real law. They could do what they want without consequences. And the Apostles, in the name of Jesus, condemned them for such ungodliness and lasciviousness, affirming that Jesus did indeed live in the body and died to save us from sin, and anyone who would deny they had sin was self-deceived (1 John 1:7-10).

To this day there are some who wish to minimize or subvert God’s rules in order to justify sinful and ungodly behaviors; many others either tolerate or even enable them in these pursuits. The Apostles rightly sounded the alarm regarding such people: Christians are called to faithfulness in Jesus, avoiding sin and manifesting righteousness, and the ways of the flesh need no justification or rationalization (cf. 1 John 2:1-17). The Gnostics and their ilk were rightly condemned for their lawlessness, attempting to use Christian liberty to justify feelings and behaviors which ultimately prove unhealthy and damaging to people and are rightly condemned by God in Christ.

Jesus of Nazareth embodied God’s valuations of rules, people, and judgment. Jesus continually upheld and embodied the Law in His life, death, and resurrection (Matthew 4:1-11, 5:17-20, Luke 24:44). Yet Jesus married the letter of the Law with its spirit in purpose as established by God: God’s rules were made for and given to His people, not the other way around (cf. Mark 2:27). Rules came about because people proved sinful and needed guidelines; Jesus came as the ultimate display of God’s love, grace, and mercy, and through Him everyone has the opportunity to obtain forgiveness of sin and standing before God (Romans 3:23-27, Galatians 3:1-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 John 4:7-21).

Contrary to the opinion of many, Jesus did affirm the impending judgment of God on account of sin, declaring the condemnation of Jerusalem and warning regarding the final judgment of everyone (Matthew 23:37-25:46). Everyone will be judged by what Jesus has said (John 12:48). And yet Jesus did not come to condemn sinful man, but to save him (Matthew 9:13): Jesus entrusted God with judgment and went about doing good for sinners (1 Peter 2:18-25). In all of time no one has been as righteous or as holy as Jesus of Nazareth (Hebrews 4:15, 5:7-8), and that very Jesus proved willing to eat and drink with sinners, to be touched by the unclean, and to extend hope for salvation to everyone, rich and poor, male and female, master and slave (Matthew 11:19, Mark 5:28-34, Luke 7:36-50, 19:1-10). Jesus’ love for sinners did not involve justifying their sin or enabling them to continue to wallow in transgression; He interacted with them to draw them near to Him and to the work of God accomplished in Him (Matthew 21:28-32).

Christians are called to follow the way of Jesus and avoid the temptations of the ways of the Pharisees and the Gnostics. Christians are called upon to uphold the integrity of what God has made known in Christ and in Scripture, and to contend for the faith delivered to them (1 Peter 3:15-16, Jude 1:3); Christians must strive to follow Jesus and live as He lived (1 John 2:3-6). And yet Christians must display love, grace, and mercy toward one another and their fellow man, recognizing the image of God in everyone, always cognizant of how their standing before God is not deserved but itself a free gift of grace and mercy from God (Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 2:1-10, 4:1-5:21, Titus 3:3-8). Christians must entrust themselves to a faithful Creator while doing good, knowing God will judge on the final day (1 Corinthians 5:13, James 4:11-12, 1 Peter 4:19). Christians thus recognize their fellow man as deceived by the Evil One and the powers and principalities over this present darkness, and thus strive to see him or her as human beings made in God’s image, corrupted by sin, but able to find redemption in Jesus (Ephesians 6:12, 1 Timothy 1:12-17). Christians must love people as God loves people; Christians must uphold God’s standards while confessing their own transgression and sinfulness; Christians must give space for God to render final judgment, and in the meantime find ways to try to save people and not condemn them. May we embody Jesus’ character in terms of God’s rules, people, and judgment, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Rules, People, and Judgmentalism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Justice

Lord YHWH of Hosts, the Creator of heaven and earth, founded the creation in justice and is enthroned on justice (Psalms 33:5, 97:2, 111:7). He is indeed the God of justice (Isaiah 30:18, Malachi 2:17). Justice involves the commendation of right conduct and punishment of wrong conduct. Injustice, by contrast, justifies and perpetuates wrong conduct to the expense of right conduct. In His wisdom, God has established the creation in justice: right conduct and a healthy concern for justice leads to the thriving of the creation and humanity its stewards; greed for unjust gain perpetuates oppression, misery, and the degradation of the creation (e.g. Hosea 4:1-4). Throughout time God has sought to uphold justice in His creation (e.g. Genesis 18:19, Jeremiah 4:2, Amos 5:24, Matthew 23:23). Man, as made in God’s image, maintains the capacity to live justly; unfortunately, man has also been corrupted by sin, and has a tendency to commit injustice and oppression when given the opportunity to advance his or her own interests (Genesis 1:27-28, Romans 5:12-21, James 5:1-6).

The Scriptures testify of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the promised King of Israel, who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). The prophets expected the Christ to reign in justice and righteousness (Isaiah 9:7, Jeremiah 33:15). In His life Jesus embodied God’s standard of justice, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom of God to the poor and oppressed and chastising the religious authorities for their injustice (Matthew 11:1-6, 23:1-36). In His death Jesus suffered the penalty for sin and transgression, satisfying the standard of justice and overcoming evil and sin (1 Peter 2:18-25). Jesus has been given all authority; God vindicated Jesus in His resurrection, ascension, and the fulfillment of all He spoke regarding Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70; Jesus will return and all will stand in judgment before Him based on what He has made known (Matthew 24:1-25:46, John 12:48, Acts 17:30-31).

As the embodiment of God’s character and the fullness of God in bodily form, Jesus ought to be the Christian’s model in all things, including the pursuit of justice (John 14:6-8, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15-2:12). To this end Christians ought not take their own vengeance, but should give space for God to render justice; they must embody the pursuit of justice in their lives and interactions with others; they must not perpetuate, justify, or prove indifferent to injustice; and they must recognize the role of the state in establishing and maintaining justice, while proving willing to expose and critique whenever the state tolerates or perpetuates injustice and oppression.

The Apostle Peter insisted Christians follow the example of their Lord: as Jesus did not revile or threaten when He suffered and was reviled, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly, so Christians must entrust themselves to a faithful Creator while doing good (1 Peter 2:23, 4:19). Paul encouraged Christians to a similar end in Romans 12:19-21. The impulse to be vindicated when wronged or oppressed is built into humanity, and it is good and will receive its satisfaction at the appropriate time; nevertheless, Christians are not to take justice into their own hands, but give space for the wrath of God. Christians are not to violently resist the evil person but can certainly take every opportunity to participate in creative nonviolent resistance to expose the injustices and oppression perpetrated on them and others on the earth (cf. Matthew 5:38-42).

Christians must resist all injustice and oppression, just as their Lord did. Christians primarily resist injustice in their personal lives and interactions with others. James encouraged visitation of widows and orphans in their distress because they had otherwise been neglected in society (James 1:27), reflecting Jesus’ concern for care for the least of those among them (Matthew 25:31-46). Christian observance of the life embodied in Jesus and displayed in various exhortations and household codes would lead to better treatment of humanity (Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:1-6:9, Colossians 3:1-4:7). Christians do well to stand up and support those whom society has forgotten, neglected, or marginalized, while providing the example and words of Christ to all.

Likewise, Christians must be on guard lest they justify, prove indifferent to, or actively participate in forms of injustice and oppression. James warned Christians against showing partiality based on social class and standing (James 2:1-10); Paul condemned the Corinthian observance of the Lord’s Supper on similar grounds (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). The earliest Christians tended to be poor and more likely to suffer injustice rather than perpetrate it; as Christians have gained wealth and social standing, great care must be exercised lest we find ourselves on the wrong end of God’s judgment against injustice. History is now littered with too many examples of people who simultaneously professed Christ while perpetrating systems which caused great abuse and suffering to others in order to gain profit and wealth. We should be ashamed of such hypocrisy and flee from it, lest the condemnation of James 5:1-6 becomes our own.

God has authorized earthly rulers and their agents to maintain justice on the earth (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18). If an earthly ruler desired to know what justice in the sight of God looks like, he or she would do well to consider Isaiah 1:17, Jeremiah 7:5-6, 22:3: show concern for the oppressed and marginalized, judge fairly, eschew bribery, and avoid shedding innocent blood. All states feature human rulers; all humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; all states thus fall short of upholding God’s justice (Romans 3:23; cf. Revelation 13:1-7). It is not the Christian’s job to judge the state; God judges in His good time. But the Christian must expose and critique the darkness in the state, pointing out where injustice is perpetrated and justified, how the wealthy use their influence to craft policy to benefit and advance their purposes to the harm of others, and to unmask the often less than sanctified justifications given for aggression against other states (Ephesians 5:11-13, Revelation 13:1-18, 17:1-18). Christians must prove as willing to challenge those who would ally with them as much as those who stand against them in these matters.

God remains the God of justice; He is also a God abundantly full of love, grace, and mercy, and stands willing to pardon, but continues to uphold righteousness and justice. As Christians we do well to embody God’s purposes for justice in Christ. We do well to uphold justice and righteousness while remaining humble, entrusting judgment to God, and seeking to find any means possible to show love, grace, and mercy to others so they would repent and be saved. We must resist all the extremes: we must not spend so much time concerned about injustice on earth that we forget about promoting the Gospel and guiding people to salvation, but we cannot sincerely love anyone’s soul if we prove utterly indifferent to (or, God forbid, actively perpetuate) the injustice or oppression they may suffer. We cannot focus on one particular form of injustice to the neglect of all others; we must never become affiliated or identified with any party or cause which embodies only a part of God’s purposes in Jesus while justifying a host of other forms of injustice. May we follow the Lord Jesus and seek to embody justice and righteousness in our lives!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Bible Translations, V: Dynamic Equivalence Versions

People have translated the Bible, in part or in whole, into other languages for over 2,000 years; throughout most of that time, “formal equivalence” has been the primary philosophy of Bible translation. Formal equivalence in translation comes about when a translator seeks to communicate the Bible into another language on a word for word basis. All of the earliest translations of the Bible into English followed formal equivalence standards; 19th and 20th century revisions to the King James Version maintained formal equivalence in translation.

Beginning in the second half of the twentieth century many translators began using a different philosophy of translation: dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence in translation comes about when translators seek to communicate the Bible into another language on a thought for thought (or sense for sense) basis. Dynamic equivalence translations thus prove a bit freer in how they render individual words in an attempt to make the primary meaning of the text clearer for the English reader.

Much has been made about this distinction; many believe there is a firm and strong distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. In reality, Bible translations fall on a spectrum between hyper-literalism (formal equivalence to the extreme) and free paraphrase (dynamic equivalence to the extreme). Most formal equivalence translations or versions of the Bible give some thought to rendering the text in a way to be understood; many dynamic equivalence translations still seek to communicate the text according to the words found in the original.

The most popular Bible in modern English is a dynamic equivalence translation: the New International Version (NIV), completed in 1978 and revised in 1984 and 2011. An “easy to read” version written at a third grade level, the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV), was published in 1996; another revision, Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was published in 2005.

The New International Version was hardly the first dynamic equivalent translation to be published. In 1966 English Roman Catholics developed an English translation based on a 1956 French translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and the result is the Jerusalem Bible (JB); in 1985 the Jerusalem Bible was completely revised, disassociating entirely from the French and reliant only on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), still in use among Roman Catholics today. In 1970 British Protestants developed a revision of the English Revised Version (RV) as the New English Bible (NEB); it was thoroughly revised in 1989 as the Revised English Bible (REB). In 1971 The Living Bible (TLB) was published as a paraphrase of the American Standard Version (ASV); a group of translators were later brought together to revise The Living Bible but ultimately came up with an entirely new version, the New Living Translation (NLT), in 1996. In 1976 the full translation of the Good News Bible (GNB) was completed; this translation is also known as the Good News Translation (GNT), Good News for Modern Man, and Today’s English Version (TEV). Other popular dynamic equivalence translations include the Contemporary English Version (CEV; 1995) and God’s Word (GW; 1995).

Dynamic equivalent translations, therefore, have proliferated since 1970, and have markedly contributed to the often confusing alphabet soup of Bible versions and translations available in English. Furthermore, not all dynamic equivalence translations are exactly the same: some, such as the NIV and NLT, maintain some allegiance to the formal equivalence philosophy; others, such as the GNT, CEV, and GW, are thoroughly dynamic equivalent in philosophy; and still others, such as the TLB, move toward paraphrase.

In general, dynamic equivalence translations can provide value in assisting the modern English reader in understanding the primary meaning and referent of a passage. Dynamic equivalence translations tend to be written at a lower grade reading level and are therefore more accessible to a wider swath of English speakers. For people who have little to no understanding of the Bible and the events described within it, for those for whom English is a second language, and for those who have challenges with reading comprehension, dynamic equivalence versions may provide assistance in understanding the meaning of the Bible. For those with greater understanding of the Bible and its message, dynamic equivalence translations can challenge presuppositions, forcing the reader to consider alternative ways of framing or translating the text. The reader may ultimately disagree with the translator’s decisions, but in the process may gain insight or appreciation he or she would otherwise have no opportunity to experience.

Many are incensed at the existence of dynamic equivalence translations, considering them as corrupt and motivated by a desire to advance false doctrines. The NIV, for instance, has been commonly reviled on account of its use of dynamic equivalence in translation (called the “Non Inspired Version” pejoratively by some). A common criticism involves the translation of Greek sarx, normally “flesh,” as “sinful nature,” and thus an allegation of Calvinistic influence (e.g. Romans 7:25). And yet “sinful nature” is what Paul is attempting to communicate with his use of sarx in many such passages; we can affirm that without affirming Calvinism, and it comes with the added benefit of not casting aspersions on the good creation which God has made. Most of the translation decisions made in the NIV and other dynamic equivalence translations can be defended according to the standards of dynamic equivalence even if they may not make the Bible reader or student the most comfortable.

Nevertheless, any reader of a dynamic equivalence translation must take great care with how they handle those versions and not put too much stock in how they read in any given passage since meaning is emphasized over specific form. Over-reliance on the wording of a dynamic equivalent translation may lead the reader toward fallacious reasoning not supported by the original text of Scripture, especially as it relates to inference. As an example, the CEV in 1 Timothy 3:2 speaks of officials as “faithful in marriage”; the original Greek reads “one woman man,” and so the ASV would have the bishop be the “husband of one wife.” To be the husband of one wife means to be faithful in marriage; yet the implications of being the husband of one wife go beyond mere faithfulness in marriage.

Dynamic equivalence translations are here to stay. If Christians are better able to understand the meaning of what God has made known in Scripture through dynamic equivalence translations, well and good. Christians may find it beneficial to explore dynamic equivalence translations and versions in order to have the Biblical text illuminated in ways they might not otherwise notice in formal equivalence translations. To these ends, dynamic equivalence translations may be good for personal reading, but not recommended for preaching and teaching. The reader does well to consult major formal equivalence translations (KJV, ASV, N/RSV, NASB, ESV) in any given reading or passage before drawing inferences or conclusions from any dynamic equivalent translation. May we all seek to come to a better understanding of what God has made known in Scripture to His glory and honor!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, V: Dynamic Equivalence Versions appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

A Terrifying Invasion

The Israelites faced the prospect of a debilitating, devastating invasion. Joel, son of Pethuel, was called to warn Israel to repentance.

All we know about Joel (“YHWH God,” or “one serving YHWH as God”; Joel 1:1) comes from the words of his prophecy; he seemed to prophesy to Judah (Joel 2:1, 3:1), and his message could be dated to any point between the ninth and fifth centuries BCE. Judah and Jerusalem did well to heed Joel’s prophecy whenever it was uttered, for much was at stake.

Joel envisioned a calamity to be remembered for generations: not one, nor two, but four successive invasions of locusts (Joel 1:2-4). This may not sound like such a catastrophe to us in the modern world, but the prospect of locust invasions terrified ancient farmers. They might look out upon a green field of crops: the rains have come at the right time; enemy invaders have been kept at bay. It looks like the family will be able to eat and survive another year. But then, in almost an instant, a cloud over the horizon: millions upon millions of locusts, devouring every green thing in their sight. Within a couple of days they would be gone and the crops destroyed; the farmer and his family would starve. And this is precisely the prospect Joel raised for Israel: a locust horde that not only tore down all the grains but also the fig tree, the grape vines, even the fruit trees, and there is nothing left for offerings or to eat (Joel 1:5-12).

In light of this Joel summoned Judah and Jerusalem to repent, for this disaster would be a day of YHWH, and it would cause great distress for everyone (Joel 1:13-15). There would be no more food for man or beast; the wilderness is burned; seeds have shriveled (Joel 1:16-20). All Joel could do was call to YHWH for aid (Joel 1:19).

Joel then saw the day had come: a trumpet ought to be sounded in Zion, for the horde has come, a day of YHWH against His people (Joel 2:1). The land may be as Eden before them, but it will become a desolation after them; they have the appearance of a frightful army with horses and war chariots, maintaining discipline, inspiring fear in all who see them (Joel 2:1-10). YHWH speaks and His army moved forward; it is the day of YHWH; who can endure it (Joel 2:11)?

Yet again Joel cried out for Judah and Jerusalem to repent, to return to YHWH with all their heart, rending their hearts and not their garments, for He may relent of this disaster coming upon them (Joel 2:12-17).

We are then told that YHWH did indeed have pity on His people (Joel 2:18). The land would receive its restoration; the people would receive back all the locusts had consumed (Joel 2:19-25). The people would not be put to shame again, and they would know that YHWH was their God in their midst (Joel 2:26-27).

Much is left unrevealed regarding this invasion of “locusts”: we do not know when it happened, if at all. The danger was very real, whether realized or not. Joel might have an actual army of locusts in mind; he also may have an army of men, perhaps the Assyrian army, in mind (Joel 2:20). If so, the Assyrians came through in 701 BCE and laid waste to Judah and besieged Jerusalem. The Assyrian horde was prophesied as an instrument of YHWH and His anger to judge Judah and Jerusalem for their iniquity (Isaiah 10:5-6, 28-34). Judah was left desolate; only a remnant remained (Isaiah 1:7-9). It was certainly the kind of calamity a father would tell his children, and his children’s children, and onward for many generations.

Joel’s horde of “locusts” would be seen again in a figure in Revelation 9:1-12: the fifth trumpet, or first woe, featured locusts coming forth from the bottomless pit, not to devour plants, but to afflict people with such great pain as to desire death, but death would not come.

Christians do well to meditate on both Joel’s warnings and his hope for restoration. Granted, we today may not believe we have much to fear in terms of locust invasions, yet Joel warned Judah about a coming day of YHWH. Days of YHWH are not pleasant and are not things to seek out (Amos 5:18). The day of YHWH is a day of judgment, some kind of devastation by natural and/or artificial means, be it a locust plague devastating the land which YHWH had blessed for Israel’s use, or a marauding army leaving nothing alive in their wake. It is never YHWH’s desire to visit upon His people such a day of judgment; it comes as a result of sinfulness and iniquity.

Joel wrote to the people of God to warn them about the judgment YHWH was about to enact upon His people. As Christians we cannot stress this enough: there are times when YHWH judges His people. These judgments may come from “natural” afflictions; they may come from the hands of enemies or persecutors; they may be more physical, or more spiritual. We should not enjoy those days; they are times of great distress, mourning, and lamentation. Yet they unfortunately prove necessary whenever the people of God grow cold, complacent, or compromised with the world. When the devastation ends only a remnant remains; yet from this remnant may come a new flourishing of faith and the advancement of God’s purposes.

While YHWH at times must judge His people, YHWH does not abandon His people or His purposes. After judgment will come a time of restoration, a flourishing just as YHWH promised. Those who humble themselves before YHWH may obtain it. Those who come out in the end know that there is but one God in the universe, and He is YHWH, the God of Israel. Those who trust in Him will not be put to shame. May we serve God through what He has made known in Christ, and obtain the victory in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Terrifying Invasion appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Textual Witnesses of the Old Testament

Christians recognize the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, as the repository for the messages God communicated through the prophets to Israel (Hebrews 1:1). They understand the Hebrew Bible is described appropriately, for the Old Testament was primarily written in what is now called Classical or Biblical Hebrew (although sosme portions are written in Biblical Aramaic: Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26, Jeremiah 10:11, Daniel 2:4-7:28). Today we call the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew the Masoretic Text (MT), after the Jewish scribes of the first millennium CE who worked diligently to preserve the text as they had received it; the MT remains the primary witness to the text of the Old Testament, and Codex Leningradensis, an 11th century MT manuscript, is the basis for the vast majority of modern translations of the Old Testament in English.

The Hebrew texts we use as the basis for our modern translations were copied about a thousand years ago. Thanks to the recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now have copies of Hebrew manuscripts which date back a further thousand years. Yet even the Dead Sea Scrolls were copied between 1300 and 300 years after the original manuscripts were written. Yet by the first century CE the Old Testament had already been translated into at least two other languages; over the next millennium it would be translated into many more. Most such translations were made on the basis of some copy of the text of the Old Testament; scholars call the Hebrew texts which served as the basis for the translation of later texts their Vorlage.

We can maintain great confidence in our overall understanding of the Bible in Hebrew and of the faithfulness of the Masoretic Text; nevertheless, at many points the text seems confused, garbled, or used terms which we do not know how to translate effectively. In these places especially other textual witnesses will be consulted: perhaps their Hebrew text had a different rendering, or perhaps the translation indicates our ancient forebears were encountering the same difficulty. At many such points many Bible translations will note how various textual witnesses render a word or a phrase to provide the reader with a glimpse into the textual challenges surrounding the passage.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is the version of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, as used by the Samaritan communities in Israel to this day. The Samaritans used their own Hebrew script derived from what we now call “paleo” or “epigraphic” Hebrew which was used in Israel before the exile in 586 BCE; we do not know when it was composed or translated, but it most likely existed before the end of the second century BCE. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch has been modified in many places for theological reasons, generally to emphasize Jacob and Mount Gerizim (e.g. Exodus 20:17). And yet in many places the Samaritan Pentateuch manifests an original Hebrew text akin to the MT but preserving different, and often more authentic, variants. The Samaritan Pentateuch will often agree with the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate against the Masoretic Text. The Samaritan Pentateuch has been used in textual criticism for almost two thousand years and for good reason.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and many other literary works of Second Temple Judaism. The Septuagint was most likely translated over a couple of hundred years before the time of Jesus by a variety of translators with different skill levels and philosophies. The “original” Septuagint (sometimes called the kaige translation) would also be later revised by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Some translation decisions by the translators are puzzling; some of their theological biases, especially against imagery portraying God in human terms (anthropomorphisms), are manifest. And yet the Septuagint, like the Samaritan Pentateuch, was translated from a Hebrew text related to but often distinct from the Masoretic Text. Its value was vindicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls; the DSS often agree with the LXX in the few variants it reflects from the MT. The Septuagint remains a powerful witness to the Old Testament.

The Aramaic Targum is a collection of paraphrases and explanations of the Old Testament written in Aramaic, the common language spoken by Jewish people throughout the diaspora. The most important targumim are Targum Onkelos (on the Torah/Pentateuch) and the Targum Jonathan (on the Prophets); they were developed over the first half of the first millennium CE. Various textual matters are discussed and described in the Targum as well as many rabbinic opinions about how the text is to be understood. The Targum stays closer to the MT than the Septuagint or Vulgate; its points of difference are therefore all the more important for consideration.

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Old Testament and other works from Second Temple Judaism as preserved in the Septuagint. The Old Testament in the Vulgate used today was primarily translated by Jerome in the late fourth century; he translated it on the basis of the Masoretic Text in consultation with the Greek Septuagint and the Old Latin translations which had been composed before him. Jerome also explained many textual critical issues he encountered in his translation in his commentaries. The Vulgate is thus often cited as a witness in terms of its agreements, whether with the MT against the Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX, or with the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch against the LXX.

The Syriac Peshitta is the translation of the Old Testament into Syriac, the language which formed out of Aramaic in Syria in the second century CE. The Peshitta was most likely translated out of Hebrew in the second century CE. It tends to serve as a textual witness in ways similar to the Latin Vulgate, as a further witness of a variant, adding weight or credence to one variant over another.

The Egyptian Coptic family of languages (Bohairic, Fayyumic, Akhmimic, Sahidic) provides another set of witnesses to the Old Testament. The Old Testament was translated out of the Greek Septuagint into Coptic, and the translation may date to the time of Christ. As translations of a translation the Coptic dialects are less frequently cited but can add weight to certain variants. Other textual witnesses include the Ethiopian Amharic, Armenian, and Old Slavonic translations, all of which date to the fourth century CE or later, are mostly translations of translations, and are thus more rarely referenced.

The value of translations of the Old Testament to its textual witness is disputed and contentious by its very nature: each translation is at least one step removed from the original text. Textual critics must assess what lay behind each variation from the Masoretic Text: is the difference because of the translator or the Vorlage? Did he misread or misunderstand the text? Did the Vorlage itself contain a spelling error or some other form of corruption? Is the translator trying to smooth out or rephrase the text to overcome its difficulties? Or is it the Masoretic Text which has become confused and these translators are more faithfully representing the original? These are the questions with which textual critics of the Old Testament must grapple.

We should be thankful for the many witnesses we have for the text of the Old Testament: while there are many points of disagreement in the rendering of words and phrases, they agree far more often than they disagree, and give us confidence in the overall integrity of the transmission process. May we come to a better understanding of God’s purposes in Israel in the Old Testament and find salvation in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Textual Witnesses of the Old Testament appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, IV: 21st Century Revisions

The 20th century was a time of great tumult, change, and transformation in general, and it was especially so in terms of Bible translations in English. At the beginning of the century the American Standard Version was released in a world defined by the King James Version; by the end of the century, while many still used the King James Version, many other translations had been developed and were widely used. The work of attempting to provide Bibles that make good sense of the Hebrew and Greek texts while remaining comprehensible to modern English speakers remains in the 21st century; the two newest translations of the century, the English Standard Version and the Christian Standard Bible, represent two different means toward that end.

In 2001 Crossway Books released a new revision of the Revised Standard Version called the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV used an “essentially literal” philosophy of translation but consciously sought to render the Bible’s text into good, clear modern English idiom and grammar. Throughout the twenty-first century the ESV has gained in popularity, and for good reason: its reading level has been brought down to a more manageable level for the Bible student (8th grade level), and the text is rendered in clear, concise English, more easily understood than many other formal equivalence versions, and the ESV has been distributed freely online and in many Bible programs.

The original rendering of Malachi 2:16 in the ESV raised many eyebrows (“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence”); it is a defensible translation of the text, but has been revised in later editions. Its use of “wife” in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is interpretive and inconsistent at times. Its confessional leanings are not strongly manifest in translation but prove striking in the ESV Study Bible and similar resources, and ought to be used with appropriate caution. Nevertheless, on the whole, the English Standard Version strikes a good balance between faithful rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts and rendering the meaning of the text in clear, 21st century English; it provides great benefit in personal study and works excellently in preaching and teaching.

In 2004 the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) was released, published by LifeWay through the Broadman & Holman Publishing Group. The HCSB would be revised in 2010; its most significant change featured the use of the transliteration of the Divine Name (Yahweh) as opposed to the traditional replacement of LORD in many places. In 2017 a new revision of the HCSB was released, entitled the Christian Standard Bible (CSB); among its revisions was a return to the traditional use of LORD for YHWH.

The HCSB manifested some major shifts in Bible translation. It was the first translation named for a Bible publishing company; while its translators may have been cross-confessional, the HCSB itself was commissioned and published by the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. Furthermore, the growing popularity of the dynamic equivalent, or “thought for thought” philosophy of Bible translation, led the translators of the HCSB toward a philosophy which they called “optimal equivalence,” their attempt at “balancing” between formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent translation methods.

To this end the HCSB/CSB provide some fresh and compelling translations of many passage that can help the reader get a good sense of what the author attempts to convey; many times the “optimal equivalence” philosophy works. The HCSB and CSB maintain a 7th to 8th grade reading level and are also presented in concise, clear English.

And yet “optimal equivalence” can manifest the same difficulties as “dynamic equivalence”: the more the translators attempt to interpret to bring out meaning, the more the doctrinal and theological biases of the translators become manifest. For years many have criticized some of the translation decisions of the dynamic equivalent New International Version (NIV), especially in passages like Psalm 51:5:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

How much more, then, in the HCSB and CSB?

Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.

Thus the HCSB proves as or more dynamically equivalent in certain verses than many dynamic equivalent translations. There is value in the dynamic equivalence approach, assisting the reader in English to better understand the core meaning and perhaps some nuances of the original which are difficult to render while maintaining the standard of formal equivalence. Nevertheless, the moment a translation departs from a strong commitment to rendering the original word-for-word, the reader must become careful in his or her inferences drawn from how the text reads; the inference might seem valid based on how the text is rendered in such a translation but prove less sustainable based on the way the Hebrew or Greek are rendered in a more literal way.

The HCSB and CSB provide benefits to those who would read it. The reader does well to remember that the translators returned to many conventions in the CSB away from the HCSB on account of reader criticism, and would do well to compare the HCSB and/or CSB to renderings in the ASV, NASB, and/or ESV for comparison. The HCSB and CSB would be good for reading and personal study; while many are beginning to use them in preaching and teaching, uncritical use in proclamation is unwise.

The work of translation and revision will no doubt continue as the 21st century progresses, and it will likely follow the paths trod by the ESV and HCSB/CSB. May we seek to use such translations to come to a better understanding of what God has made known in Christ and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, IV: 21st Century Revisions appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Strong in the Lord

Paul crafted his message to the Ephesian Christians well. He set forth how believers had been granted every spiritual blessing in the Lord Jesus Christ: predestination, election, adoption, an inheritance, the Spirit; all were lost in sin, but God showed great love, grace, and mercy in Christ; in Christ God killed the hostility between Jew and Gentile, and reconciled them into one body; the mystery of the Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles (Ephesians 1:1-3:12). Paul had prayed for the Ephesian Christians to have their hearts enlightened to perceive the great love God has manifested in Jesus according to the power at work in them (Ephesians 1:15-20, 3:14-21). On this basis Paul encouraged them to walk worthily and consistently with this calling: uphold the unity of the church, building up the church in love, no longer living as in darkness but manifesting the light of Jesus, walking wisely, living according to the will of the Lord (Ephesians 4:1-5:21).

Paul applied what it meant to live according to the will of the Lord in the marriage relationship, speaking of husbands and wives in terms of Christ and the church, and vice versa in Ephesians 5:22-33. He continued in the same theme, addressing parents and children in Ephesians 6:1-4: children are to obey their parents in the Lord, and fathers must not exasperate their children, but raise them in the Lord’s discipline and admonition. Paul grounded his exhortation to children in the fifth commandment given in Exodus 20:12: honor your father and mother. Those who honor their parents prove more likely to live quality lives as upright citizens; those who dishonor their parents are more liable to end up in ruin and despair. Yet children are to obey their parents in the Lord; if their parents demand anything contrary to the Lord’s will, children must obey God rather than man (cf. Acts 5:29). Children do not raise themselves; they need good boundaries, commending what is good and chastising what is evil. Children without boundaries yearn for them for the rest of their lives. Christians do well to provide those boundaries as the discipline of the Lord Jesus according to His revealed will.

Paul then turned to the relationship of masters and slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9: slaves were to prove obedient to their earthly masters, working as unto the Lord, knowing they would receive good from the Lord for doing so; masters were to treat slaves well without threatening, remembering they all have a Master watching over them in heaven. We today find such a passage difficult: how could Paul countenance such an institution as slavery? We must remember that slavery in the Roman world was not like the chattel slavery practiced in the American South; if a slave can obtain freedom, Paul would have him obtain it, and Paul’s powerful appeal to Philemon for Onesimus shows his concern for slaves (1 Corinthians 7:21, Philemon 1:1-22). The primary purpose of the Gospel is to reconcile people with God and each other in Christ; only in such radical equality can the inhumanity of owning another person become truly manifest. Slavery was pervasive in the ancient world; it was only circumscribed as a practice when Christianity expanded its reach. Whenever people sit at the Lord’s table together it proves difficult to justify the systems of mankind which considers some superior or inferior to others. Nevertheless Paul’s wisdom applies well to employers and employees today: work diligently at whatever you do, and do not exploit or threaten those under your charge.

Paul brought his exhortations together and to a close in Ephesians 6:10-20 by encouraging Christians to remain strong in the Lord and the strength of His might. He explained how Christians are in a struggle not with fellow humans (“flesh and blood”) but with all sorts of powers and principalities, cosmic forces ruling over this present darkness (Ephesians 6:12). To this end Christians must equip themselves with the armor of God in order to stand against the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:11, 13). Paul used traditional Roman armor to make his case. A Roman soldier’s armor was held together by the belt; Christians must gird themselves with the belt of truth, which thus holds everything else together (Ephesians 6:14). The breastplate would provide protection for the internal organs; righteousness serves that role for the Christian (Ephesians 6:14). Good shoes proved important if the army would move efficiently and effectively; Christians wear the “shoes” of the preparation of the Gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15). The Roman shield was the front line of defense, made to withstand spears and even fire arrows; Roman soldiers lined up in maniple formation, in which each soldier’s shield protected part of him and also part of the man next to him; Christians use faith as a shield, not in isolation, but in formation together with fellow members of the body of Christ, able to extinguish the fire arrows of the Evil One (Ephesians 6:16). The helmet protects the head; Christians are preserved in salvation (Ephesians 6:17). The offensive weapon for the Christian is the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God; the sword is the machaira, a short sword used for stabbing, presuming close quarters in battle (Ephesians 6:17). Battles are won or lost on the basis of effective communication: to this end Christians must always be in contact with “headquarters,” praying at all times, making supplication, watching in prayer for all the Christians, and also Paul himself, that he might speak the Gospel with boldness as he had opportunity, living as an ambassador of Jesus in chains (Ephesians 6:18-20). When all the exhortation is said and done Christians must remember they are in the midst of a war. They did not ask to participate in this war, but the war goes on all around them, and they are all caught up in the conflict whether they recognize it or not. Likewise the Christian must remember it is a spiritual war, not a physical one; far too many have justified horrendous acts of barbarity and cruelty in war in the name of Jesus, something Jesus never commended in life or through His Apostles. Christians are not the heroes of this war; Jesus is. It is not for the Christian to storm the enemy’s gates; as Paul insisted and repeated time and again in Ephesians 6:10-20, it is for the Christian to stand firm, to resist the forces of evil. He is equipped more in defense than offense, and must act accordingly. Christians will not stand because of their own heroic strength; they stand because they trust in the Lord and in His might to withstand the array of evil forces against them.

The letter to the Ephesians provides little personal detail about Paul’s condition; Tychicus, Paul’s Asian companion, would provide such detail in person (Ephesians 6:21-22). Paul ended his letter to the Ephesians with a standard conclusion for a letter, that peace, grace, and love with faith may come to all who love the Lord with an incorruptible love (Ephesians 6:23-24). In this way Paul has left with the Ephesian Christians and all Christians throughout time a compelling and majestic explanation of the great blessings with which God has blessed us in Jesus, and how Christians are to live in light of all those blessings. May we prove ever thankful for God’s glorious display of grace, love, and mercy in Jesus, walk worthily of our calling, and stand firm in the Lord and His strength!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Strong in the Lord appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Revelation (Apocalypse) of John

John was in exile for the faith. God granted him a compelling vision which would encourage Christians in their faith: what they were experiencing was consistent with the challenges of the people of God before them. Jesus would have the victory.

Revelation, also called the Apocalypse (Greek apokalupsis, “unveiling”), is the twenty-seventh and final book in modern editions of the New Testament. While Revelation is written in the form of a letter, it generally is placed in its own category of “apocalyptic.” The author identifies himself as John (Revelation 1:4); while some have speculated regarding potential other authors, most ancient witnesses consider John as the same person as the author of the Gospels and Letters bearing that name. The specific audience is identified as the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Revelation 1:4, 11). The dating of Revelation is a very controversial matter and often considered determinative for interpretation: some favor an early date in the 60s, others somewhere in the 70s or 80s, and others a late date in the 90s. The text itself does not provide any explicit reference; if the date were so decisive for interpretation we would expect God to provide it, and He has done no such thing. Internal criteria can be understood as favoring either an early or a late date depending on interpretation. Irenaeus, who interacted with men who had seen John in the flesh, claimed John saw the Revelation in the days of Domitian (Against Heresies 5.30.3); Domitian reigned from 81-96, and this evidence would favor the late date, as does most evidence from early Christian witness. In the first few hundred years of Christianity many had questions regarding Revelation’s place in the New Testament canon, less on account of its origin and more on account of its use and abuse by heretics; such a concern is well placed, for not a few false prophets have been deceived by doctrines of demons and have led many others astray on account of their views regarding and emphasis on Revelation. A long treatise would be required to sort out various forms of interpretation regarding Revelation in general and the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 in particular. For our purposes we understand Revelation to be a vision God gave to Jesus to give to John using imagery consistent with what had been made known through the prophets and Jesus to encourage the Christians of Asia Minor in the late first century to obtain the victory of Jesus in faith in the face of the Roman menace.

Revelation begins as a letter to the seven churches of Asia written by John while in exile on the island of Patmos (Revelation 1:1-9). John saw Jesus in terms of the Ancient of Days and one like a Son of Man, and Jesus told him to write what he saw to the seven churches; Jesus began to explain the meaning of the images John saw, suggesting to the reader that whereas John sees the images as described in Revelation, their meaning involved something quite different and more familiar (e.g. candlesticks/lampstand as churches, Revelation 1:10-20; cf. Daniel 7:1-14). Jesus began with specific messages for each of the seven churches, speaking both to them as individual congregations in a specific context and suggesting each as a representative type of congregation (Revelation 2:1-3:22).

John was then summoned up and was granted a vision of the heavenly throne scene, reminiscent of what was seen by Isaiah and Ezekiel (Revelation 4:1-11; cf. Isaiah 6:1-9, Ezekiel 1:1-28). God has a scroll with seven seals, and only the Lion of Judah, the Lamb, Jesus, was worthy to open the seals (Revelation 5:1-14). As the first six seals are opened four horsemen come forth; martyrs are commended and told to wait; great terror comes upon the people of earth (Revelation 6:1-17). In an “intermission” John saw faithful Christians on earth sealed by God while God in Christ was praised by Christians and the heavenly host surrounding His throne, and the blessed state of those departed faithful Christians was pronounced (Revelation 7:1-17).

The opening of the seventh seal introduced the proclamation of seven trumpets: the first five trumpets bring forth judgments on the earth (Revelation 8:1-13). The final three trumpets were also known as the three woes: one brought forth tormenting locust creatures from the abyss, the second brought forth an army of plagues among mankind, an intermission in which John is given a scroll to eat to continue to prophesy, the measurement of the temple representing the faithful people of God, and the proclamation, death, and resurrection of God’s two faithful servants, and the last woe is not described; instead, praise is rendered to God as if the third woe had come to pass and now reigns over all for eternity (Revelation 9:1-11:19).

Revelation 12:1-20:15 seems to present a second “cycle” parallel to Revelation 6:1-11:19, for John saw a woman giving birth to the Christ child who was protected from a dragon, identified as Satan; Satan and his forces fought against Michael and his forces, and were defeated and cast down to the earth; Satan attempts to persecute the woman, but was hindered; he raised up a beast (embodiment of Roman power in the Emperor) and a second beast, a false prophet (embodiment of Roman pagan religion), who spoke blasphemies, overpowered the majority, and made war on the saints (Revelation 12:1-13:18). John then saw Jesus and the faithful saints, and three angels gave pronouncement regarding what would come to pass: a harvest of the faithful and a judgment against the wicked, envisioned as a judgment of seven bowls of God’s wrath poured out on the beast and his people (Revelation 14:1-16:21). John is then introduced to Babylon the whore and her condemnation: her condition is described in ways reminiscent of Rome; judgment was made against her, and he heard the lamentation of many peoples regarding the downfall of Babylon but also the exaltation in heaven over her fall and the impending marriage supper of the Lamb and His bride; in the final “Armageddon” Jesus defeated the beast and the false prophet (Revelation 17:1-19:21).

John was shown a period of thousand years, or a millennium, in which Satan was bound and Christians reigned (perhaps the period since the downfall of paganism; Revelation 20:1-6). After the millennium Satan is loosed to deceive the nations for a time, and then came the final judgment: Satan, his minions, and those not found in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire, the second death (Revelation 20:7-15). John then saw the eternal fate of those whose names were in the book of life in the new heavens and the new earth: he was shown the bride of the Lamb, the faithful people of God, glorified, as a city coming down from heaven encrusted with jewels, in which God dwelt with His people, and provided for them; the scene included a river of life and trees of life, reminiscent of Eden (Revelation 21:1-22:6; cf. Genesis 2:1-23). John ended the Revelation with concluding exhortations assuring Christians of what would come to pass, warnings about altering what is said in the prophecy, and an appeal for the Lord Jesus to return quickly (Revelation 22:7-21). Thus ends not only the Revelation to John but revelation itself; the New Testament is thus concluded.

Christians do well to handle the Revelation of John with care, seeking to understand it in terms of what God has made known in the rest of the New Testament, and not vice versa. Yet Revelation ultimately can provide great encouragement for the Christian: God is faithful, God will have the victory, and we can share in the new heavens and new earth, but only if we remain faithful and overcome in Jesus. Amen! Lord Jesus, come quickly!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Revelation (Apocalypse) of John appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Authenticity

“Authentic” has become one of the new buzzwords of the twenty-first century; it would seem that everyone, everywhere is on a quest to manifest greater authenticity. People yearn to find their true, authentic selves, they search for authentic experiences, and they want to exist in spaces which value authenticity. Authenticity in relationships is highly valued.

This desire for authenticity represents an awareness of how much of life seems fake, contrived, or forced. People easily feel controlled or manipulated in various ways; they seem to become what they would rather avoid. They will believe or do all sorts of things in order to be loved, accepted, or welcomed into a group. Meanwhile, people put on pretense and pretend to be things they are not; such acting is exhausting. All of this reveals a deep, profound anxiety: people fear rejection of their true selves and so put on the pretense of being someone else or go along with the expectations of others. People would like to be accepted while remaining authentic to themselves; in practice they value the former over the latter. Thus people die inside, overwhelmed by hurt, insecurity, alienation, anxieties, and fear, pretending to have everything together, and convinced everyone else has everything together, thus reinforcing feelings of inadequacy. In a world that looks more like “reality” television every day and of “fake news,” people yearn for what is real and to be real about life.

To this end, a desire for authenticity is not unwarranted. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, for they put on the pretense of being one way, but acted in quite another (Matthew 23:1-35). The Greek word for “hypocrite” originally referred to an actor, and many indeed go through life putting on an elaborate act, pretending to be something other than they truly are. Such acting and hypocrisy are not unique to the world; Christians often succumb to the pressure of putting on a righteous appearance so as to measure up to the rest in their “holy huddles,” never willing to expose any possible deficiency lest their sanctity and standing before God would be up for questioning. Masquerades such as these are effective tools of the Evil One, keeping many in bondage to pretense, often blind to reality, self-deceived (cf. 2 Timothy 2:26-3:9, Hebrews 3:12). God desires to heal people from their pain, distress, anxiety, fear, inadequacy, shame, and such like (1 Peter 2:24, 5:16-17). Christians are called upon to confess their sins to one another, not to pretend they are without sin (James 5:16).

Authenticity, therefore, maintains value. God would have His people manifest authenticity and sincerity, to love without hypocrisy, and speak and live truthfully (Romans 12:9, Ephesians 4:29). Christians cultivate trust among one another and with people in the world through their faithfulness, generating trust on account of honesty and life without pretense. God has loved and accepted us despite our performance and has given of His Son for our redemption (Romans 5:6-11); Christians who trust in God’s love and acceptance find in Him the strength to love and accept others despite their performance. In a sin-sick world people yearn for honest conversation, acceptance without pretense, and an acknowledgement of the difficulties and complexities of life; people can find satisfaction for such desires in Jesus and ought to see it manifest in His people.

And yet, for too many, the goal of authenticity goes well beyond, believing that in finding the “true self” one will be able to locate true satisfaction. Authenticity is thus considered the end, and not a means to an end: if I can find my true self, so the thinking goes, I will come to a place of confidence and rest. I will be everything I am supposed to be. If I can just get past pretense, I can be great.

Let none be deceived: it is important to understand who we really are. We do well to recognize our strengths and identify our weaknesses; we must appreciate how God has made us who we are and dedicate ourselves to serving God in the Kingdom of Jesus according to our abilities (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, 1 Peter 4:10-11). Nevertheless, our “true self” is far from ideal; our true self is really often rather ugly (cf. James 1:22-25). Ironically, searching for our “true selves” as some kind of ideal proves insincere and inauthentic, because all of us have deficiencies, flaws, inadequacies, unhealthy coping mechanisms, eccentricities, etc., which we do not really want to associate with our “true selves.” We want to think of ourselves as well-informed even if we prove quite ignorant in many respects; we want to think of ourselves as fair-minded and non-judgmental even though we prove susceptible to tribalistic thinking and judge others for the same inadequacies we would rather not see in ourselves. Our “true selves” are on display when we think no one is looking, and very few people prove content with what they find in those circumstances.

Therefore, while authenticity and sincerity in understanding who we are and what we are about are essential for character and virtue, they prove insufficient to manifest quality character or virtue. We must strip ourselves of our self-deceptions and pretenses about who we really are; it is not as if God is ignorant of our true condition (cf. James 1:22-25)! Ascertaining our “authentic self” then provides a basis upon which to cultivate greater virtue, trusting in God in Christ, submitting to His purposes, praying for strength to manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and developing the habits which facilitate the manifestation of those character traits (Galatians 5:22-24, Ephesians 3:14-21). Yes, God loves each and every one of us, and will accept us as we are: God does not at all intend to keep us there, but would have us grow to become ever more like Him in His Son (Romans 8:29).

Authenticity is therefore an important means to an end, but it is not an end unto itself. We do well to manifest authenticity and sincerity in our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; we must recognize who we are, for better and for worse, and we should stop pretending to be what we are not. Yet just being what we are will never be sufficient, for we are weak and prone to sin (Romans 3:23); we must strive to greater trust in Jesus and manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit, dependent on God’s strength and provision, manifesting sanctification through greater development of virtue in Jesus. May we trust in the Lord Jesus and be conformed to His image so we may obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Authenticity appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Marriage

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

For the Christian of any time and place, marriage must go back to the beginning, the first man and the first woman.

God made both the man and the woman in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). In this way neither men nor women are inherently superior or inferior to each other; they are equally created in God’s image, and in Christ maintain equal ability to stand before God, equal worth in the sight of God, and are joint-heirs of the grace of life (Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 3:7). A husband is not inherently better or worse than his wife, and vice versa; cultural attitudes to the contrary are wrong, sinful, a cause of great distress and grief, especially to women, and ought to have no place among Christians.

While God made both man and woman in His image, He created the man first, and then the woman out of man and for man (Genesis 2:1-23). On this ground Paul set forth roles for men and women in Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Timothy 2:11-15). Men and women have equal worth and standing, and yet men and women are different. In the beginning their differences did not lead to conflict or disharmony, but proved complementary, and it can be so to this day. While no doubt certain aspects of what people think it means to be a man or woman come from cultural expectations, “masculine” and “feminine” characteristics do reflect actual differences between the genders. Men lack things which women supply; women lack things which men supply. It was not good for man to be alone; woman was made for him, and so men and women continue to have the desire to join together to become husband and wife.

A man clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). From the beginning the impulse toward sexual intercourse was designed to be directed and confined to the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. The sexual drive is powerful in humans, a yearning not only for physical but also mental and spiritual connection; divorcing physical pleasure from the mental and spiritual connection anesthetizes the latter and leads to a debased, dehumanized sexuality (1 Corinthians 6:18). Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 and then related it to Christ and the church in Ephesians 5:31-32; Jesus declared the man and woman are no longer two, but one flesh in Matthew 19:4-5. God is one in relational unity, and desires for people to be one with Him as He is one in Himself (John 17:20-23); those of old spoke of this unity as perichoresis, mutual interpenetration without the loss of individuality. We can perceive perichoretic relational unity in a musical performance, yet it is especially manifest in the marital relationship. The man and the woman become one flesh; they remain two people, but one flesh. A man and a man cannot become one flesh, neither can a woman and a woman; no substantive intimate union is present.

Paul made much of the association between Christ and the church and husband and wife in Ephesians 5:22-33. Mutual submission in reverence to Christ proves necessary to make any relationship function, including between husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21). The church submits to Christ because Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her (Ephesians 5:23-25); in a similar way, the wife is to submit to her husband, and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:22-25). The husband is to treat his wife as his own flesh, just as Christ takes care of His body, the church (Ephesians 5:26-30). In interpersonal terms, the husband must love his wife, and the wife must respect her husband; ideally, according to the example of their Lord, unconditionally (Ephesians 5:33). Such exhortation is widely derided and ridiculed in the modern world and caricatured in its worst possible light. We do well to note how Paul provided no justification for spousal abuse or coercion: husbands are not authorized to demand or compel submission from their wives, and one does not show love to one’s one flesh by beating or otherwise abusing it. The husband will be held accountable to God for his household as its head (Ephesians 5:23); as the one accountable, he ultimately bears the responsibility, and to that end is granted a measure of authority, and, as Christ the church, love his wife, sacrifice, and suffer for her. The wife will be held accountable for how she submitted to her husband and his leadership (Ephesians 5:22-23, 1 Peter 3:1-6); she should give it freely, without compulsion, and maintain trust and respect in her husband. Women need love; men need respect; women communicate in terms of love; men communicate in terms of respect. For this reason women must respect their husbands, something not intuitive once the husband proves disappointing or insufficient in some respect; likewise, husbands must love their wives and live with them in an understanding way, not intuitive once the wife proves disappointing or insufficient in some respect (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). The marriage relationship is not held together by perfect performance, but the willingness to display love, respect, grace, and compassion despite performance, just as it is with God and mankind, Christ and the church.

Having quoted Genesis 2:24, Jesus set forth that a husband and wife are no longer two, but one flesh, and drew the appropriate conclusion: what God has joined man is not to separate (Matthew 19:4-6). God designed the marriage covenant to remain for life (Romans 7:1-4), not unlike the covenants made between Himself and mankind. Man ought not separate what God joined by becoming one with other flesh, committing sexually deviant behavior in adultery, homosexuality, and such like (1 Corinthians 6:13-20, Galatians 5:19). Man ought not separate what God joined in divorce (Matthew 19:9); an exception is granted for those who divorce their spouse for sexually deviant behavior, yet this is an exception, not the rule. Marriage relationships go through trial; it is far harder to endure the trial if one imagines there is a way of escape. A commitment as intimate and holy as marriage ought not be trifled or dispensed with freely or offhandedly.

God’s exalted view of marriage is under continual cultural and social pressure. It does not sit well with our highly individualistic ethos and the elevation of personal happiness as the ultimate goal of life. And yet marriage remains good and holy (Hebrews 13:4); there is a beautiful picture of love, devotion, grace, and mercy in a long lasting marriage which has endured the difficulties of life and has overcome its trials. Weddings manifest superficial beauty; a marriage maintained in sickness as well as in health, for poorer as much as for richer, and in distress and trial as much as success and victory is beautiful through and through.

It is not good for man to be alone; marriage is good, and honorable, but there will be difficulties, and it does require diligent effort. Marriage can lead to the greatest distress and pain, and yet it can also provide some of the greatest love and comfort that mankind can know. May we honor marriage and uphold God’s purposes for it, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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