Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 42

Bible Translations, III: 19th and 20th Century Revisions

For over three hundred years the King James Version was the Bible in English. By the nineteenth century many Greek manuscripts had been discovered which preserved more authentic and faithful readings of the original than the Textus Receptus Greek text base of the KJV; English as a language had undergone many changes. In 1870 the Church of England in Canterbury commissioned a revision of the King James Version in light of new textual evidence and understanding of Hebrew and Greek, leading to the 1881 Revised Version (RV). From the Revised Version, and especially its American counterpart, the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, all further modern translations would flow.

The major difference between the Revised Version and the American Standard Version involves the Divine Name, rendered “LORD” in the RV and “Jehovah” in the ASV. They both represent substantially the most literal translation designed for use within the churches; in many places in the New Testament a person familiar with Greek can essentially see the Greek text in the RV/ASV since it tends to replicate Greek sentence structure and grammatical peculiarities. The RV/ASV maintain the literal strength of the KJV and are based on more ancient Greek manuscripts. Like the KJV, the RV/ASV are no longer copyrighted, and can be freely quoted without fear of compromising copyright law.

The main strength of the RV/ASV is also its weakness: it is a wooden translation of the text, more “translationese” than English in many places. Its intentional use of archaic language is understandable in its context (to sound more like the KJV familiar to all English-speaking Christians) but a hindrance to understanding. The vocabulary of the RV/ASV expects a higher grade reading level. The use of “Jehovah” as the Divine Name in the ASV is unfortunate (YHWH is more accurate), although it does help to differentiate God’s name from the title “Lord.” Until recently it was hard to obtain access to the RV/ASV: the RV is only published as a part of a RV/KJV interlinear, and the ASV is only in publication as a New Testament by Star Bible. Only now with the prevalence of Bible software have the RV and ASV become more accessible.

The Revised Version and/or American Standard Version are quality Bible versions which ought to be consulted in any significant study of Scripture, especially involving semantics and discussion about language and phraseology. They represent great study versions, but their limited access in publication, archaic language, and wooden translation make them difficult primary versions for preaching and teaching.

In the 1930s the copyright holder of the American Standard Version recognized the value and importance of a revision to that text to modernize its language and incorporate evidence from new findings, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls. This led to the creation of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1952. The Revised Standard Version, and its later revision of 1989, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), would become the standard Bible of mainline Protestantism and within the community of scholars; in its day the RSV proved to be the first version to seriously challenge the hegemony of the KJV among English speaking Christians.

The RSV and NRSV are quality formal equivalence (“word for word”) translations which generally maintain faithfulness to the Hebrew and Greek texts while presenting them in more recognizably modern English. As with all later offshoots of the ASV the RSV and NRSV return to “LORD” as opposed to “Jehovah;” the RSV maintained archaic forms of address for God (“Thou, Thee,” etc.); the NRSV modernized them. The NRSV alone of all versions has incorporated an addition to the text of 1 Samuel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 10:27 NRSV).

This reading has explanatory value and power regardless of what one may think of its placement in terms of canon and theology. The translation of the Hebrew prophets in the NRSV is of exceptionally high quality, effectively capturing the nuances of the message of the prophets.

The translation of ‘almah as “young woman” rather than “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV prompted much controversy, as did the the mandate for gender-inclusive terminology in the New Testament of the NRSV. The strong acceptance of the RSV and NRSV within mainline Protestantism and its prevalence among scholars led to great suspicion and skepticism of those versions within Evangelicalism. The gender-inclusive terminology in the NRSV often borders on the ridiculous (e.g. “friends” for “brethren,” Galatians 6:1, etc.). While the RSV and NRSV have more modernized English and better English style than its forebears, they still are translated at a twelfth grade reading level.

Despite their reputations the Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version remain quality English translations of the Scriptures and are worth considering in study. The high level of language and adaptations with gender neutral language hinder them from effective use in preaching and teaching.

By the 1960s many within Evangelicalism desired a revision of the American Standard Version which would remain theologically conservative, rather literal, and yet more modern in idiom. The Lockman Foundation thus developed the New American Standard Bible (NASB; also known as New American Standard Version, or NASV), published in 1971. In 1995 the Foundation published an updated version, the New American Standard Update; the update, sometimes called NASU or NASB95, has essentially replaced the original, which itself is now often known as NAS77.

The NASB is as advertised: it is the most literal of the modern offshoots of the ASV but in more modern language. It does not incorporate gender inclusive language, and its translation does not provoke concern regarding theological liberalism. The NASB usefully italicizes English words added to the translation not explicit in the original Greek and renders quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament in small caps. The NASB95 handles the future perfect of Matthew 16:19 accurately.

Yet, as with the ASV, so with the NASB: its commitment to literalism means its English style and structure often prove awkward. It maintains a twelfth grade reading level and thus proves inaccessible to many. Its theological commitments occasionally get in its way, as with depersonalizing Azazel as the “scapegoat” in Leviticus 16:8-10, and speaking of a father and not a betrothed prospective husband in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38.

The New American Standard Bible remains a high quality Bible version, valuable for study, and often used in preaching and teaching. May we use all such versions to come to a better understanding of God and His purposes in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, III: 19th and 20th Century Revisions appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Walking in Love

Paul had related to the Ephesian Christians the great and glorious works of God: every blessing has been given to believers in Jesus, 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 account of all this Paul encouraged the Ephesian Christians to walk worthily and consistently with this calling, striving to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, building up the body of Christ, the church, turning aside from the ways of darkness, renewing the spirit of their minds, dedicated to honesty, kindness, patience, and forgiveness toward one another (Ephesians 4:1-32).

Paul continued his exhortation to the Ephesian Christians: imitate God and walk in love as Christ has loved us and gave Himself as a pleasant offering before God (Ephesians 5:1-2). God has given us of His image in Jesus, and the love we are to share is not abstract or disembodied but manifest in what Jesus did for us, understood by Paul according to the sacrifices offered before God according to the Law of Moses (cf. Leviticus, John 14:6-9, Colossians 1:15-21). To this end Christians can no longer participate in sexually deviant behavior, reckless behavior, greed, foolish talk, or any kind of unprofitable talk, since they are now saints; they ought to give thanks to God instead (Ephesians 5:3-4). Indeed, those who participate in such forms of wickedness have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God in Christ; anyone who would suggest otherwise attempts to deceive Christians, for God’s wrath comes upon the disobedient on account of these things (Ephesians 5:5-6). Christians must not share in such ungodliness, for they must walk as children of light, not of darkness; Christians ought to expose such dark and evil deeds to the light of God in Christ in the Gospel (Ephesians 5:7-13). Paul then quoted a declaration known to the Ephesian Christians, perhaps as some part of hymn to Christ, exhorting the sleeper to awake and arise from the dead so Christ can shine on him (Ephesians 5:14). Thus Paul warns the Ephesian Christians against participation in the common transgressions of the Gentile world around them, encouraging them to recognize such behaviors as darkness and to resist them.

In order to imitate God and walk in love Christians must watch how they walk, and walk wisely (Ephesians 5:15). Christians must redeem, or make the best use of the time, because the days are evil (Ephesians 5:16); life is short, and we must make the most of what God has given us. Christians must not be foolish, but to understand the will of the Lord: to not be drunk with wine but filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in song, giving thanks to God, submitting to one another in reverence for Jesus (Ephesians 5:17-21). God does not intend for the Christian to be filled with distilled spirits but with His Spirit; Christians manifest the Spirit when they speak to one another in song, communicating the message of God to each other as the people have God have done since time immemorial, thanking God always for what He has done in Jesus, and considering the needs of each other as equal or greater than one’s own needs in mutual submission (cf. Philippians 2:1-4, Colossians 3:16-18).

In what follows Paul will speak of husbands and wives in terms of Christ and the church, and Christ and the church in terms of husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:22-33); the beginning of the discussion is dependent on Ephesians 5:21, and we are to understand that Paul continues to speak regarding the will of the Lord and in light of the imperative of mutual submission. The wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord just as the church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-24). People today bristle at such instruction, imagining its abuse and distortion. These verses have unfortunately been used to justify abuse; we must emphasize that Paul does not command the husband to make his wife submit, but that the wife’s submission is a freewill decision and offering which ought not be coerced. Ephesians 5:21 does not contradict Ephesians 5:22-24, and vice versa: wives are to submit to their husbands while both mutually submit to one another in reverence toward Christ.

While people bristle at the suggestion of wives submitting to their husbands, few bristle at the prospect of the church submitting to Christ: it is understood to be natural and expected, since Christ deeply loves the church, having given Himself for her, and has rescued her from sin and death (Ephesians 5:22-24); in a similar way husbands are to love their wives, as Christ has loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). Any discussion of the wife’s responsibility to the husband without noting the husband’s responsibility to the wife is incomplete and distorted; the husband is called upon to sacrifice himself, to absorb whatever hostility or invective comes his way, and to willingly give himself for the wife of his youth. Paul presumes a level of self-care: no one hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, and thus the husband should nourish and cherish his wife as his own flesh (Ephesians 5:28-29). Paul summarizes his instruction by exhorting the husband to love his wife and the wife to respect her husband (Ephesians 5:33). In this way Paul identified the woman’s greatest need as love and the man’s greatest need as respect; the husband who loves his wife as himself and gives himself for her does well, and the wife who submits to her husband and respects him does well, and those who resist such things will struggle and fall short.

While Paul speaks regarding responsibilities within the marriage relationship in Ephesians 5:22-33, his primary concern is Christ and the church. The church submits to Christ in all things, for He has proven Himself loving and faithful, the Savior of the body, suffering and dying for her, having cleansed her through the washing of water (baptism) with the Word (Gospel), presenting to Himself the church in splendor, holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:22-27). The purity of the church does not derive from its own effort but the cleansing received from its Lord; nevertheless, the church must preserve that purity, and have excised from itself all those who would remain in sin without repentance (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Christ loves the church as His own body, and thus nourishes and cherishes it; the life of the church is sustained and upheld by Jesus (Ephesians 5:28-30; cf. John 15:1-7). Paul quoted Genesis 2:24, in which Moses establishes God’s purposes for marriage, and called it a profound mystery, referring to Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32): as a man and woman join together and become one flesh in marriage and intercourse, no longer two, but one flesh, so Christ and the church are to be “married” and become “one flesh,” to share in full relational unity (cf. Matthew 19:3-6, John 17:20-23). Paul envisions marriage and its intercourse as a dim physical shadow of the relational unity which is manifest in God Himself and which God not only desires to have with the redeemed in Jesus but expects the redeemed to have with Jesus in the church (cf. Revelation 21:1-11).

Paul has much to say about imitating God, walking in love, and understanding the will of the Lord, and we should pay strong attention to it. We must avoid the works of darkness, love one another, be filled with the Spirit, singing the songs of the people of God, thanking God for all He has done for us in Jesus, submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, serving the Lord in the church as His bride and in our marriage relationships accordingly. May we walk in love as Jesus has loved us, suffering with Him so that we may be glorified in Him, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Walking in Love appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Letter of Jude

He would have rather written an encouraging letter regarding their shared faith; nevertheless, many false teachers had infiltrated their ranks, justifying immorality, denying the Lord. Such people always had existed among the people of God; they all would share in the same condemnation, as Jude set forth in his letter to his fellow Christians.

The letter of Jude is the twenty-sixth book in modern editions of the New Testament; it is often categorized among one of the “catholic” or universal letters or epistles. The author identifies himself as Jude, brother of James (Jude 1:1); this James is generally believed to be James the Just, the brother of the Lord, elder in Jerusalem, and author of the letter of James, and so Jude would also be the brother of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 13:55, Acts 21:18, James 1:1). The Scriptures reveal nothing else about Jude. Many in scholarship consider the letter of Jude as a pseudepigraphal work of the second century; while the letter was reckoned among the disputed books in early Christianity, many early Christians testified to its legitimacy, particularly Clement of Alexandria (Comments on the Letter of Jude; also featured in the Muratorian Canon). The letter provides no information about the location of its author or its specific audience beyond those called loved in God, and kept for Jesus (Jude 1:1), but according to historical accounts Jude’s family remained in Palestine for at least three generations after him (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.19-20; his great-grandson Judah Kyriakon as an elder in Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 1); thus Jude may well have remained in Palestine, and wrote to Christians in his association or in general. No date or time reference is found in the letter of Jude, but it is most likely to be dated between 70 and 90: the text betrays no continued existence of the Temple or its services, and seemed to reflect Gnosticizing tendencies among some of the disenchanted, likely consistent with Palestine in the post-destruction period. Of all the New Testament authors Jude proved most conversant with apocryphal and pseudepigraphal traditions, alluding to and explicitly quoting the Book of Enoch and referring to the Assumption of Moses (Jude 1:6, 9, 14-15; cf. 1 Enoch 1:9); whether he considered these entire works to be inspired and profitable cannot be decided with any degree of confidence, but these particular allusions have certainly received full affirmation as legitimate, and we do well to respect the judgment of the brother of the Lord in these matters. Jude wrote to encourage Christians to stand firm in the faith which had been delivered to them and resist those in their midst who taught and lived in ways contrary to its message.

Jude identified himself as the slave of Jesus and brother of James, and spoke of his audience of Christians as called, beloved by God the Father, and kept for Jesus; he then provided a slightly modified epistolary greeting, speaking of mercy, peace, and love (Jude 1:1-2). Jude immediately set forth his reason for writing: he wished to speak about their common salvation, but felt compelled to write to encourage them to contend for the faith delivered to the saints once for all (Jude 1:3).

Jude then condemned false teachers who had gained entrance among the Christians (Jude 1:4-16). Their condemnation was foreordained; as ungodly men, they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness and deny the Lord Jesus (Jude 1:5). Jude rehearsed God’s judgments of the past: unfaithful Israelites perished in the Wilderness; angels who sinned were cast into prison; Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to sexually deviant behavior; in a similar way these false teachers defile the flesh, despise authority, and revile glorious spiritual beings (Jude 1:6-8; cf. Genesis 6:1-4, 19:1-29, Exodus 14:1-Deuteronomy 34:12, 1 Corinthians 10:1-12). Yet even Michael the archangel refused to revile Satan, but pronounced God’s rebuke on him; these false teachers revile things they do not understand, and what they claim to understand they abuse in sensuality (Jude 1:9-10; a reference to the Assumption of Moses, based on Deuteronomy 34:6). Jude pronounced woe on the false teachers, speaking of them in terms of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, decrying them as stumbling blocks in their assemblies, self-serving leaders providing no profit to others, unstable, about to be destroyed, their shame manifest, condemned by Enoch in prophecy, gossips, slanderers, showing favoritism to their own ends (Jude 1:9-16; cf. Genesis 4:5-14, Numbers 16:1-35, 22:1-24:25, 31:16, 1 Enoch 1:9).

Jude then encouraged his fellow Christians based on what they heard from the Apostles (Jude 1:17-23). The Apostles foretold the coming of such ungodly, sensual false teachers (Jude 1:17-19; cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-4, 6:1-10, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3). Christians, nevertheless, were to build each other up in their holy faith, pray in the Spirit, keep themselves in God’s love, and look for the mercy of Jesus unto eternal life (Jude 1:20-21). Christians should have mercy on those who doubt; some were to be saved from the fire, and others they should have mercy with fear, hating the corruption of the body (Jude 1:22-23). Jude concluded with a declaration of praise of God in Christ (a doxology), glorifying God as the Savior who can guard Christians from sin and make them stand in His presence in cleanliness and joy, and who deserves majesty, dominion, and power from before time until forever (Jude 1:24-25).

Jude’s letter may be short, and full of parallels with 2 Peter 2:1-22, yet has been cherished for its exhortations. To this day Christians must contend for the faith, given to them once for all by the Apostles; they must be on guard against those who introduce worldly influences; and yet judgment is to be rendered by God, and it is for Christians to encourage one another and do all they can to rescue those who have fallen prey to the doctrines of demons and the forces of the powers and principalities over this present darkness. May we contend for the faith and be strengthened in God’s love and Jesus’ mercy and be saved!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Letter of Jude appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Ritual

We can imagine the scene: a dark wood. Men and women stand around wearing cloaks; strange words are uttered. Perhaps some sacrifice is offered. Or perhaps it is in an old church building with a priest wearing elaborate clothing and rehearsing the same act as has been said for thousands of years. Maybe we think of a secret society and its induction ceremony, giving initiates the secret knowledge passed on for generations.

Such things come to mind when we think of rituals. “Ritual” comes to us with a primarily religious origin: “a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.” “Rite” is a synonym of ritual, and is often used to describe the historic liturgical order of the mass in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, etc. These masses remain highly formalized, featuring specific and consistent formulas, acts, and other behaviors by certain individuals wearing antiquated garments. For generations many were spoken in languages not known by the majority of the population.

Ever since the days of the Reformation many Westerners have reacted to the excesses of ritual and formalism in Christianity and have sought to excise ritual from faith and life. They have proven extremely successful: “ritual” is immediately associated with “superstition” in modern society, and superstitions have been widely condemned as fanciful, against reason, and a hindrance to enlightenment and human progress for at least 250 years. Iconoclasts against various forms of ritual remain in both religious and secular contexts; ritual is often communal, after all, and we now live in the ultimate Age of the Individual.

Even though modern man looks askance at what he or she would deem “superstitious ritual,” modern life is highly ritualistic. Self-help literature glorifies the development of habits, and what are habits but set patterns of behavior, and therefore personal rituals? How many sports fans and players develop elaborate ceremonies or maintain certain patterns of behavior on game day? Why do we still have graduation ceremonies or wedding ceremonies in which people wear antiquated clothing and perform specific and consistent formulas and acts? Why do we still feel compelled to go to funerals and participate in set grieving practices? All of these speak to the continuing power of ritual in life.

Christians have often been skeptical of ritual, thinking of rituals primarily in terms of the high church liturgical tradition, and perhaps as too physical and not nearly spiritual enough for their faith. Even though “ritual” gets a bad reputation, very few are willing to go so far as the Quakers and completely spiritualize important practices of the faith, and for good reason.

Christianity is in fact defined by two powerful rituals: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or communion). Baptism is a ritual cleansing: Peter insisted that baptism was not designed for the removal of dirt from the flesh (1 Peter 3:21). The English word “baptism” all too obfuscates the concept and thus the importance of the ritual nature of the act: “baptism” is now defined as a religious ritual in English, whereas in Greek baptizo could refer just as easily to the washing of clothing and the washing of the body. Some fear that calling baptism a ritual would deaden its power and diminish its effectiveness, but it does nothing of the sort: it brings into relief how the action is defined by its purpose. We “baptize” our bodies and “baptize” our clothing and “dip” and “wash” many things for many reasons; none of these have the power or importance of being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin (Acts 2:38). There is no spiritual power or physical property of the water which provides this cleansing and conversion; it is all by faith and trust in the working of God (1 Peter 3:21). While baptism has many spiritual elements it is done physically and in the body for good reason: the physical act of baptism provides a clear line of delineation for us in our lives. In baptism we die in Christ to be raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-7); in baptism we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27). In baptism we have a sign, a visible demonstration, and a declaration of commitment manifesting our submission to the covenant God has made with all mankind in Jesus, a ceremony and a ritual act to consecrate ourselves to God’s purpose, and all for the same reasons why we continue to insist on having some kind of formal ceremony dedicating a man and a woman together to become husband and wife. Baptism speaks to the power of ritual.

The Lord’s Supper is a ritual meal: Jesus inaugurated it in the midst of one of Israel’s prescribed rituals, the Passover, and performed certain actions and declared certain words which were not merely said and done once, but were handed down and continued for years (Luke 22:7-23, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). As a ritual meal the Lord’s Supper is not designed to satisfy hunger, for none will feel physically satisfied by a little unleavened bread and fruit of the vine; Paul encouraged those who were hungry to eat at home (1 Corinthians 11:34). We may eat unleavened bread and drink grape juice on other occasions, but such is not the Lord’s Supper; we come together on the Lord’s day, the day of His resurrection, and we give thanks to God for the particular bread before us so as to represent the Lord’s body, and the grape juice as the Lord’s blood, and in so doing manifest our unity in Jesus (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-26, Revelation 1:10). The spiritual elements of the Lord’s Supper are manifest, and previous claims of the physical transformation of the elements certainly literalized the metaphor; nevertheless, for good reason we continue to share actual unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, for the Lord’s Supper in its ritual reinforces the delineation of our lives made in baptism, confirming us as fellow members of the covenant, and physically displays our unity in the faith as we share in the elements of the Lord’s Supper together (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:27-31). When we assemble to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week we draw closer to the events of Passover in the first century than we were on the Tuesday of the previous week, an idea ludicrous according to modern conception of time yet very real according to what God has made known in Christ and Scripture, for we in a sense re-create the “upper room,” communing with Jesus, just as Israel would re-create the night of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage in the Passover (cf. Exodus 12:1-28).

It remains possible for rituals to become cold, formal, empty proclamations; Christians must be on guard against such tendencies. Nevertheless, as meaning seeking creatures, humans need rituals to define who they are, with whom they are in association, and what life is all about. God has made us this way, and has established appropriate rituals within the faith in Christ to provide that identity, association, and meaning. May we seek to follow the Lord Jesus in all things and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Ritual appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and His Brethren

God loves you; you are special in His sight, for He made you, and He sent His Son to die so that you might receive the forgiveness of sin and a share in eternity with Him (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-11).

Such is a familiar message, not only to Christians, but also to many people in the world: this is the presentation of the Christian message which has gained the most traction in the Western world over the past few generations. Millions have heard it; millions have even accepted its message to some degree or another, “got saved” with a prayer, and carried on with their lives.

Presenting the Gospel as God’s love and care for a person as an individual is not wrong, but it is certainly incomplete; therefore, its results have not borne the kind of fruit God intended from the beginning. God absolutely loves each of us as individuals, and we are all valuable in His sight; yet God’s purpose has never been to save each of us as individuals in some kind of vacuum. God has delivered us from bondage to sin and death not only to be reconciled to Him but also to one another (John 17:20-23).

God expects the Christian to see him or herself as part of a greater whole: the church, the people of God. At no point in the New Testament is the salvation of the individual Christian envisioned as an end unto itself: Christians are saved to begin jointly participating in Christ with fellow Christians (1 John 1:7). Christians are invited to see themselves as the people of God, the recipients of the promise made to Abraham, having obtained standing before God through faith in Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:1-12, Ephesians 2:11-22). Eternity is pictured in terms of God having glorified the heavenly city, the Bride, new Jerusalem, that is, the church, the collective of the people of God (Revelation 21:1-22:6).

Christianity, therefore, cannot be reduced to a mere individual journey in spiritual development. Any message which would promise individual salvation without any reference to connections and associations with fellow believers is not the good news of Jesus of Nazareth; to suggest a person could be a Christian without the church is to deny the one coherent, connected body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Ephesians 4:4-6). If people walk away from hearing a message believing that a quick prayer can solve all their problems so they can get on with life, they have entirely missed what God has sought to do in Jesus.

God’s eternal purpose in Jesus is to display His manifold wisdom to the powers and principalities in the church (Ephesians 3:10-11). Thus, in the church, people who would otherwise be separated and alienated from each other are made into one man through their faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:11-18). The mystery of the Gospel involves the inclusion of Gentiles as full participants in the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 3:1-6). God has given gifts to His people so they might work to equip one another and build one another up in their faith (Ephesians 4:7-16).

And so in the New Testament emphasis is placed on the Christian’s responsibility to “one another,” or to his or her fellow Christians, their brothers and sisters in Christ. Christians will be known as disciples of Jesus by their love for one another (John 13:35); John’s wonderful description of love in 1 John 4:7-21 drives home the imperative to love one another. At some point in every New Testament letter the Apostles provide encouragement and exhortation regarding how Christians treat one another.

Christians thus unapologetically prefer and prioritize one another (Romans 12:10). Christians do so not because they have no care or concern for their fellow man, but because fellow Christians are recognized as fellow members of God’s house (Ephesians 2:18-22). Family bonds have privileged all others throughout time and place; such is thus true for the Christian and his or her spiritual family in Jesus (Galatians 6:10). If we do not take care of one another, why should anyone in the world expect us to take care of them? Instead, when unbelievers see Christians taking great care of each other on account of their shared identity in Jesus, they testify to their love for one another, and may find it a compelling reason to serve the Lord Jesus!

Christians prefer and prioritize one another because of their shared faith and confidence in Jesus (1 John 1:7). The church displays God’s manifold wisdom to the powers and principalities because within it all the worldly barriers of division are broken down in Jesus (Ephesians 2:11-18). Christians are therefore not to rebuild what God tore down in Jesus. Christians hail from all sorts of nations, ideologies, cultures, comforts, and preferences; Christians must not be deceived by the powers and principalities into thinking less of their fellow Christians or to divide into various sects on account of these differences (Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:1-23). Christians must discern truth from fiction, human philosophy from divine decree, and uphold both the truth and the value of fellow Christians, even though they may not share the same cultural heritage. The church should never be as divided as the world; “Christendom” has all too often reflected the world and not not Jesus with all of its divisions and fractures.

Christians strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). Unity in Christ comes from the work God has accomplished in Jesus and through the Spirit: we have been made one body in Him, baptized into one Spirit, reconciled from all that alienated us from God and each other (Romans 5:6-11, 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must prove as willing to strive to maintain the unity God has designed for us as we are to defend the truth which He embodied in Jesus (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). While unity without truth is a lie, truth without unity is contrary to the very nature of the God who is truth and one in relational unity (John 14:6, 17:20-23). God has joined us in Christ; what God has therefore joined man ought not separate.

Christians will be saved in and as the body of Christ (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28). Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper to embody the communion we share as fellow members of Jesus (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). None of us are sufficient in and of ourselves; we need each other, just as different body parts need one another for the healthy functioning of all (1 Corinthians 12:12-28). To be one we must be around each other; hence the need for frequent assembling (Hebrews 10:24-25). We must care for each other, strengthening each other, building up, caring, rejoicing together, weeping together, sharing in life together (1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Ephesians 4:11-16).

Do Christians live up to their calling? No. We all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Such is not a failing of God’s purposes in Jesus: we have been created to share in life together. Accepting alienation and isolation as the way to go is to capitulate to the forces of darkness in the heavenly realm. May we instead uphold God’s purposes in Jesus and seek to be one with one another as God is One in Himself, and share in the glory of the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and His Brethren appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Walking Worthily of Our Calling

Paul’s powerful presentation in Ephesians 1:1-3:21 no doubt had its effect, overwhelming the Christians who heard or read it. Paul had set forth the spiritual blessings with which God has blessed Christians in Christ: election; a great salvation, not by works but through grace and faith displayed generously in Christ; access to God in Christ, provided equally to Jew and Gentile who were made one man in Christ; the presence of the Spirit, in whom they had been sanctified; joint participation in the church of which Jesus was the head, a temple for the Spirit, in which all have equal standing before God as members of His household. Paul had wished for them to come to an understanding in the heart of the greatness of the love God has displayed in Jesus; God was able to do well beyond whatever Christians could ask or think.

God had done all of these things or had provided for them in Christ. Paul then turned to speak of how Christians ought to respond in light of all of these wonderful blessings. In short, Paul expected Christians to walk worthily of this calling they had received from God (Ephesians 4:1). He would set forth what walking worthily looked like in Ephesians 4:2-6:20, the “exhortative” or “practical” half of the letter to the Ephesians.

Paul began with a strong emphasis on unity (Ephesians 4:2-6). He had already explained how God secured unity among Christians through the reconciling work of Jesus on the cross (Ephesians 2:11-3:12); Christians must strive to maintain that unity (Ephesians 4:3). They do so by remaining humble and meek,

patient and tolerating one another in love, as if constrained by the peace secured for us through Jesus’ work (Ephesians 4:2-3; cf. Ephesians 2:11-18). Paul stressed the “oneness” of Christianity: one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one body, one baptism, one hope (Ephesians 4:4-6). Polemically this unity can be used to argue against factionalism and divisiveness; yet Paul’s point is to reinforce the importance and power of unity. God is one in relational unity; God has provided one sufficient sacrifice on our behalf; God has set forth one way for salvation: thus Christians must strive to maintain that unity in the Spirit in the bond of peace. Sadly, for the most part, “Christendom” is far from the unity Paul here emphasizes. Too many are content with a surface-level unity which is really declaring victory in defeat. Real unity takes hard work, humility, and trust in the Lord Jesus, and we do well to strive to be Christians only, preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and upholding the one faith in the one body of the one Lord from the one Spirit to obtain the one hope.

But maintenance of unity is not only the responsibility of the individual Christian. God has freely given gifts in Jesus as is written in Psalm 68:18: Jesus descended in death and ascended far above the heavens to fill all things (Ephesians 4:7-10). Within the church God has given various people fulfilling different roles, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (Ephesians 4:11). They serve the body of Christ, equipping Christians for the work of ministry (and accomplish their work of ministry themselves), building up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). This work would continue until all would obtain maturity in Christ, no longer troubled by various teachings and doctrines, but having grown up into Christ the head from whom all the body is joined together, would work together to build up one another in love by speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:13-16). No more beautiful passage can be found in the New Testament regarding the work of the church than Ephesians 4:11-16: we have the words of the Apostles on which to ground our understanding of Christ and His purposes, the words of the prophets to exhort us to faithful conduct, evangelists to encourage people in the Gospel, and shepherd teachers to provide instruction to apply the Gospel to life, allowing for all Christians to grow and mature and build each other up in their most holy faith to glorify God and strengthen one another.

If one would walk worthily of the calling in Christ and seek to maintain unity and build up the body of Christ, one must give thought to how one is living and how they relate to others, and Paul continued in Ephesians 4:17-32 to this end. Christians must no longer walk as the people of the nations do, alienated from the life of God, hard of heart on account of sensuality; such is not how the Ephesian Christians learned Christ and the truth in Him (Ephesians 4:17-20). The Ephesian Christians were mostly Gentile; Paul uses “Gentile” in Ephesians 4:17 as we might use the term “pagan,” with all of its negative connotations. The Ephesian Christians could not follow Jesus and live according to their former patterns; instead, they were to put away that previous way of living, reckoned as an “old man” corrupted in deceit, and to instead be renewed in the spirit of their mind, putting on the “new man” created in righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:20-24). Paul then shifts to speak of specifics: since Christians are now one body, they should stop lying to each other and speak truth to one another (Ephesians 4:25; cf. Zechariah 8:16); they may have cause to be angry at times, but they should not allow it to fester into sin and give an opportunity for the devil (Ephesians 4:26-27; cf. Psalm 4:4); those who stole should cease and instead work to have something for those in need, to cease being a drain on others and become a source of support (Ephesians 4:28). Paul addressed matters of conversation and relationship: Christians must not speak corruptly but to speak well to edify and give grace to those who hear; not grieving the Spirit of God in whom they were sealed; putting away bitterness, wrath, anger, and slander, being kind to one another, disposed to feel for one another, and to forgive one another, as God has forgiven in Christ (Ephesians 4:29-32). The Spirit is grieved when we do not work to maintain unity in Him, speaking that which is false, giving vent to anger which destroys relationship, undermining trust, and refusing to grant the forgiveness to others we so desperately seek for ourselves.

Christians do well to walk worthily of their calling, striving to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Such requires great effort in love, humility, compassion, and kindness, looking for opportunities to build up and strengthen, and resisting the impulse to vent spleen and corrode relationships. May we walk worthily of the way of Jesus, putting on the new man, renewed in the spirit of our minds!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Walking Worthily of Our Calling appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, II: The King James Version and the New King James Version

The King James Version (KJV)

In 1604 King James I of England (VI of Scotland) summoned the Hampton Court Conference. As a result of difficulties ascertained with previous English Bibles, the Bishops’ and Great Bibles, it was decided to facilitate the creation of a new English version based on the Bishops’ Bible in consultation with the Tyndale translation, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, and the Geneva Bible, as assessed by Biblical scholars in Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. The collaborative work would be completed by 1611, and would become known as the King James Bible or the Authorized Version. The original work contained the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament; most editions today omit the Apocrypha. The King James Version is a formal equivalent, or “word for word,” translation.

The KJV proves faithful to the original Greek: no other popular version is as literally translated as the KJV. In many cases the literal translation will be difficult to understand and can lead to confusion in understanding the meaning; in other cases, the literal feel of the translation will help a reader come to a better understanding of the original.

The KJV text is also very pleasing to be read due to the antiquity of its language; its Elizabethan English is nice to hear. The KJV was the Bible in English for almost four hundred years and remains popular to this day. Its influence on English language and literature is hard to overstate. The KJV can still be used in almost any church to this day without causing consternation.

While the Elizabethan English is pleasing to the ears, it can be difficult for modern English speakers to understand. The English language has changed significantly over the past three hundred years, and so many of the phrases used in the KJV prove obsolete and even confusing. Most readers will have to first “translate” the KJV into more modern English for understanding, and then seek to understand what the text is attempting to say; it is not at all God’s will for people to doubly “translate” His words so that they can be understood.

At times the translators of the KJV came to incorrect conclusions about the reading of certain words, especially in Hebrew; our understanding of Biblical Hebrew is stronger today than it was four hundred years ago. Some attempt to fiercely defend the integrity of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, the Greek text which served as the basis for the KJV, or the “Majority Text,” the Greek text one would get by following the majority reading of all manuscript evidence; such people will generally strongly accept the KJV and how it renders the New Testament. Nevertheless, over the past four hundred years we have discovered many ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament which preserve variants more authentic to the original; many words and phrases were added within lines of Scripture in the 1,500 years of copying the New Testament, and these additions are clear when examining the older copies. The most egregious example of such differences can be seen in what is frequently called the Comma Johannem, 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (KJV).

And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth [New American Standard Bible (NASB)].

The vast majority (in fact, all but one copy, and that one has been questioned) of Greek texts follow the NASB reading of this verse; the Textus Receptus contains the addition; and so the KJV contains the addition, and has been a source of contention ever since.

We must be clear: such variations make up a small percentage of the text. One can come to an effective knowledge of what God has made known in Jesus by reading the KJV, and many Christians have glorified God in Christ with knowledge only of the KJV. Nevertheless, when in deep study or in discussions about spiritual things dependent on exact readings of texts, it is important to recognize how these distinctions may affect interpretation, and to consult with more modern versions and the critical apparatus of Greek texts when necessary to come to a good understanding of the differences among the texts.

The KJV is a solid version, and is good for any serious Bible student to have in his or her library. It has earned its renown. For Christians today, however, the language is extremely antiquated; even if the Christian can come to a good understanding of its English, it will prove to be a stumbling block when attempting to convey the Word of God to others. Likewise, variations in manuscripts and understanding of Biblical languages demands that any deep study of the KJV would require consultation of a modern version like the ASV, NASB, ESV, and/or NRSV.

The New King James Version (NKJV)

In 1975 some Biblical scholars met in Chicago and Nashville to establish a set of guidelines by which the King James Version could be revised to update its language and grammar to conform to modern English while maintaining the literalism and style of the original. They did consult with the most recent edition of Biblica Hebraica for the Old Testament, along with discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, but also made reference to the same ben Hayyim Hebrew text used by the King James translators; for the New Testament reference to the Textus Receptus was maintained. The work was completed by 1982 and became known as the New King James Version (NKJV), a formal equivalent (“word for word”) translation.

In general the translators succeeded in their efforts: the NKJV maintains the literal translation and style of the KJV, but its language has been updated so as to be more readily understood by the modern English reader. Some of the infelicities of the KJV translation of the Old Testament are corrected. Nevertheless, since the NKJV is still based on the Textus Receptus, it suffers from the same difficulties as the KJV in terms of manuscript evidence; the NKJV even follows the KJV in 1 John 5:7. Yet most editions of the NKJV do maintain one strength: they will often provide the Nestle-Aland/UBS text readings in the notes when they diverge from the N/KJV reading, providing the reader with the ability to make an immediate comparison and to be able to immediately recognize the points at which the texts diverge.

Many Christians have moved from the KJV to the NKJV, since it maintains the feel of the KJV but with updated language. Its English is still relatively elevated, at around an eighth grade reading level. For those who wish to remain close to the KJV and its tradition, the NKJV will work well. Yet any Christian who would use the NKJV would do well to consult the notes about the readings of the NU-Texts, and consult other versions as necessary.

Other versions have come about in the same tradition, like the 21st Century King James Version and the Modern King James Version, which are akin to the New King James Version in many ways. May we use such translations to come to a better understanding of God’s purposes manifest in Christ and be saved!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, II: The King James Version and the New King James Version appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Second and Third Letters of John

False teachers went about among the churches, denying the bodily existence of the Lord Jesus; one Christian was filled with pride and an unhealthy view of himself and proved overly ambitious and divisive. John would write to faithful Christians to encourage them to stand firm; the results are the second and third letters of John.

The second and third letters of John are the twenty-third and twenty-fourth books in modern editions of the New Testament; they often categorized among one of the “catholic” or universal letters or epistles.

The same author is behind both 2 John and 3 John; he identified himself as “the elder” in each (2 John 1:1, 3 John 1:1). They share commonalities in theme and literary style with 1 John and the Gospel of John; this, along with early Christian testimony, provides sufficient justification for considering the Apostle John to be “the elder” and the author of these letters, although some have posited the existence of a separate “John the Elder.” 2 John is written to “the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1:1); some believed it to be a letter to Mary the mother of Jesus and Jesus’ living brothers and sisters, since John the Apostle was made Mary’s caretaker in John 19:26-27. Yet John concluded the letter with greetings from the “children of your elect sister” (2 John 1:13), and encouraged the “dear lady” to “love one another” (2 John 1:5), straining any credible claim that individual family members are involved. The “elect lady and her children” are most likely referring to a local church, as is the “children of your elect sister”. 3 John is written to Gaius, a Christian who was likely a disciple of John but regarding whom we know nothing beyond what is recorded in the letter; he is most likely not the same Gaius whom Paul knew in Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 1:14. John most likely wrote 2 John and 3 John from Ephesus, John’s center of ministry (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1); it would thus be the “elect sister” of 2 John 1:13. Neither 2 John nor 3 John provide any definitive evidence to establish dating; some suggest it was written in the 60s, but the prevalence and concern regarding docetism and perhaps even proto-Gnosticism is better placed later on, around 80-95. John wrote 2 John and 3 John to encourage Christians and churches to uphold the truth, support those faithfully promoting the truth, and standing firm against docetism and presumptuous Christians.

John began 2 John with an epistolary greeting emphasizing not only his love of the “elect lady,” most likely a local church and her children, the members of that church, in truth, but also the love of all who know the truth, and how the truth abides in us forever (2 John 1:1-3). John happily reported how he found some of its Christians faithfully walking in the truth as the Father commanded us to do (2 John 1:4). John then encouraged the church an old but new commandment to love one another, walking in the commandments as originally received (2 John 1:5-6; cf. 1 John 2:3-8, 3:11, 23-24).

John turned to warn the church regarding the deceivers who had gone out into the world: they do not confess Jesus as having come in the flesh (2 John 1:7; cf. 1 John 4:1-4). Christians must be on guard against them lest they lose their reward, for those who do not maintain the truth about the teaching of Christ do not have God, but those who uphold that teaching have the Father and the Son (2 John 1:8-9). Christians must not even greet or show any form of hospitality to people bringing such teachings, for to do so would participate in their wicked works (2 John 1:10-11). This denial of Jesus’ bodily existence is docetism (from Greek dokeo, “to seem”; they taught Jesus only seemed to be human); by denying Jesus’ bodily existence, they by necessity deny His birth, death, and resurrection, and thus the core of the faith (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20). Some suggest the “teaching of Christ” involves anything involving the truth God has made known in Jesus, but such is a wider interpretation than the context can support; in 2 John 1:8-9 John’s focus is on the teachings regarding Jesus the Christ, His bodily existence as the Son of God.

John had other things to say but wished to do so in person and not with pen and ink (2 John 1:12). John concluded 2 John with greetings from the “children of your elect sister,” most likely the Christians of Ephesus (2 John 1:13).

John wrote 3 John to the “beloved” Gaius, whom John loved in the truth (3 John 1:1). John prayed for Gaius’ health and prosperity, thankful to hear of his stand in the truth from fellow Christians, for John enjoyed no greater joy than to hear of “his children,” likely Christians whom he taught and mentored, as walking in the truth (3 John 1:2-4).

John then encouraged Gaius to provide for those who stood before him as faithful Christians: he may not have known them, but they had testified regarding his love for God and His purposes before the church, and they had gone out to proclaim the Name of Jesus, taking no provision from unbelievers (3 John 1:5-7). John’s letter is most likely a way of attesting to the legitimacy of these men and a not so subtle hint for Gaius to provide them with food, shelter, and provisions for their journey; to help them is to participate in their work (3 John 1:8).

John had written to the church of which Gaius was a member; nevertheless, Diotrephes, whom John said loved to have pre-eminence, influenced the church so as to dismiss whatever John had said (3 John 1:9). John planned on coming there to expose the wickedness of his words and deeds, speaking against John, not receiving visiting Christians, and casts out any Christians who would receive them (3 John 1:10). Christians must not imitate evil but imitate good, for those who do good are from God, but those who o evil have not seen God (3 John 1:11). John commended Demetrius and spoke of his commendation from the others and from the truth (3 John 1:12). John has more to say but intended to come and see Gaius and speak face to face (3 John 1:13-14a). John concluded 3 John by sending greetings to, and asking Gaius to greet, the “friends,” another way of speaking of fellow Christians (although some manuscripts read “brethren”; 3 John 3:14bc; cf. John 15:15).

We can only imagine the encouraging conversations John would have enjoyed with his fellow Christians. Nevertheless we can gain strong encouragement from these short letters which he wrote. May we stand in the truth, do good, keep the commandments of Jesus, and abide in the Father and the Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Second and Third Letters of John appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Vulnerability

So much about vulnerability can be understood by the very word we have used to describe it.

Vulnerability is becoming a more prominent theme in American culture today. Dr. Brene Brown, a noted researcher in the field of shame and vulnerability, functionally defines vulnerability as “uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure” (Daring Greatly, p. 34). In a word, vulnerability is openness: the willingness to be open to at least some people and experiences.

Yet “vulnerability” ultimately derives from Latin vulner, a wound; to be vulnerable, therefore, involves the ability to be wounded. And such is generally how we view openness: we view the opportunity to become open to people or experiences with apprehension and concern because we might be wounded in the process. Our thought processes and actions often attempt to insulate us from such wounding.

Such insulation goes by many names: retreating into our shell; putting on our armor; raising up shields; putting on the performance. We fear the openness of vulnerability as weakness and something which can be exploited against us; we find it better to present ourselves as invulnerable. We harden ourselves against other people; we try to position ourselves so that we may be able to help others, but do not want to be in the position where we seek help ourselves.

It was not always this way. We all learned to become invulnerable because of personal experience and cultural expectations. We can all probably remember that one time where we wanted to showcase something we felt was special, only to find ourselves mocked, derided, or teased when we opened up and showed it to the world. We thought we learned a most important lesson in life that day: better to hole up than to expose ourselves. Better to put on the armor, play the part, lest we get shamed or teased. We absorbed the lessons culture would have us learn: show no weakness. Look strong. Keep it together.

And yet we find ourselves alone and isolated. We wonder who we are and why we are here. Our relationships often prove superficial and unsatisfying; even in the midst of a lot of people, we can feel alone. Far too many seek solace in destructive behaviors.

All of these things flow from our posture of invulnerability, for it cuts two ways: if no one can hurt us, no one can really love us, either. If we close ourselves off so that we are not harmed, we also cannot be healed. To put on the armor of invulnerability is to prepare oneself for loneliness and alienation. When we cut ourselves off from people, we cut ourselves off from the life sustaining strength we gain from one another.

Vulnerability, and especially the lack thereof, represents a major challenge for followers of Jesus in the modern Western world. As in all things, we must look toward the example of Jesus, and He has manifested His vulnerability to the world.

By his wounds you have been healed (1 Peter 2:24c ESV).

We must deeply imbibe the meaning Peter’s quotation of Isaiah 53:5. We often seek to present ourselves as invulnerable precisely because we wish to avoid the shame, the pain, and the suffering which comes from being wounded. And yet Jesus, the Son of God, became flesh, dwelt among mankind, and deeply felt for their pain and anguish (Matthew 9:36). He suffered the depredations and degradations of the cross and absorbed the insults and derision of those who crucified Him (cf. Matthew 27:27-44). He endured the cross and despised its shame (Hebrews 12:2). And He did it all precisely for those people who were mocking Him and killing Him; He did it so all men could be restored in relationship with their God (Romans 5:5-11)!

The openness inherent in vulnerability makes wounding inevitable. Those who would be vulnerable will be wounded by others, however intentionally or otherwise. And yet relationships cannot flourish and thrive without vulnerability.

Jesus pointed the way. After all, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23); God would have every justification to turn away from us or lash out against us for our rebelliousness. And yet God, in Christ, absorbed the suffering and loss and proved willing to take on the wound in love, grace, and mercy, so that we might be restored in relationship to Him. When God had every reason to turn away from us, His Son became flesh, dwelt among us, and died for us.

If we would be godly in Christ Jesus, we must prove equally willing to be vulnerable toward others. We will experience wounding. Parents and children know just how to hurt one another; spouses can lash out at each other. Friends sometimes have hot disagreements; churches are full of people who are at different stages in life and who act and project just as much based on their inadequacies and failings as much as their strengths. We will be hurt. We will open up and suffer betrayal in some form or another. We will welcome people into our lives that will leave us soon afterward. We will be tempted to give up and to retreat into our shell: to play the game, put on the act, and keep people at a distance.

If we give up, we will give into the alienation and hostility among people which is a hallmark of the god of this world. The Lord Jesus will give us the strength to follow His example, if only we would trust in Him to do so. We must open up to one another despite the hurt and betrayal, recognizing that we would want people to remain open to us despite our own inadequacies and failures, and ever mindful of how God proved vulnerable on our behalf.

By Jesus’ wounds we are healed; healing can only ever take place when we open up and allow whatever “treatment” or “medicine” need apply. We must open up to God and to His people if we wish to be saved, just as God opened Himself up in Christ to save us. May we recognize the greater way of love in vulnerable openness, and encourage one another in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Vulnerability appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Proper Perspective

It is one of the great conundrums and challenges of “Christendom” today: how can so many sincere people read the same book, ostensibly confess the same Lord, and yet come to such radically different conclusions about all kinds of doctrines and practices? All sorts of answers can be given, and many have merit. One such answer with great explanatory power involves perspective. How much thought is given to perspective, or frame of mind, when the Scriptures are approached? What are we attempting to accomplish with our exploration of Scripture and our claim to follow Jesus in all things?

Perspective can be a pernicious matter. We all have our perspectives based on our fundamental operating assumptions which we have developed through various influences: our parents and families, our education, our culture, etc. Everyone has a perspective, and everyone seems equally convinced their perspective is the best or right perspective. And yet all of our perspectives are flawed to some degree or another, for we are all human, continually fall short of the glory of God, and tend to be spectacularly bad at recognizing our blind spots (cf. Romans 3:23).

Yet we should not be driven to despair: we can grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ despite our flaws (2 Peter 3:18). But to do so effectively requires the Christian to do all he or she can to maintain a proper perspective in all things.

To this end humility regarding perspective always proves essential. God’s ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9); we are finite creatures and can only understand so much. God has made known to us some things regarding Himself and His purposes: they are sufficient to equip us to seek His will, but they do not provide a complete understanding of all things (Deuteronomy 29:29, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Hebrews 1:1-2). We will always know far less than we can imagine; what we do learn ought to display our lack of understanding all the more. Just because something God has made known does not make sense to us does not make it untrue. We must be careful lest we make a god out of our own minds and our ability to understand, and attempt to force God and His ways to fit into a box of our own creation and imagination. Not a few heresies have arisen because people attempted to make fully human and rational sense out of the mysteries of God.

Let God be found true and every man a liar (cf. Romans 3:4): we must ground everything we believe in what God has made known in Jesus and in Scripture (John 14:6, Hebrews 1:1-3). To this end Paul encourages Christians to say and do all things in the name of the Lord, since we are always subject to His authority (Romans 6:14-23, Colossians 3:17). Yet our obedience must be not merely in pretense but also in truth: it is not enough to simply assert “the Bible says…,” but to demonstrate the truth of the claim in ways consistent with the context and in light of all God has made known in Jesus. We must be careful regarding both tradition and iconoclasm against tradition. A given concept, doctrine, practice, or structure is not made hallowed over time: just because some people claiming to follow Jesus have believed, taught, or practiced something for a few hundred years does not make it true or right. On the other hand, people have been reading the Bible and have attempted to follow Jesus for almost 2,000 years, and the odds that we today could discover a concept, doctrine, or practice which is truly grounded in Christ but missed by everyone over that time is impossibly remote. If we cannot find any precedents for an idea, belief, or practice in “Christendom” over the past two millennia, the difficulty is more likely with our own perspective than that of those who came before us. We do well to explore the heritage of Christianity lest we fall into the same heretical traps as did some who came before us. The voices of the past challenge our perspective: we do well to pray for wisdom to discern where we can find the failings of the perspectives of those who came before us, but also to be confronted with our own biases and presuppositions by them in turn.

God has made known His purposes in Christ; we can know how to be full of good works (2 Timothy 3:14-17). To this end Paul affirms that whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Far too many wish to reverse the statement, and approach authority as if whatsoever is not of sin is faith: as long as something is not condemned, it is acceptable. The New Testament upholds no such teaching; it may be the worldly definition of freedom and liberty, but it is not consistent with God’s purposes. Far too many innovations and deviations from God’s purposes were initially justified by the claim that “God never said we cannot or should not.” The Christian does well to approach all things by first asking if it is right, and then to ask if it is profitable (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23). If both can be answered in the affirmative, strong ground exists to move forward. If they cannot be answered in the affirmative, the Christian must ask him or herself what would motivate the desire to proceed.

Christians must acknowledge the influence of worldly thinking so they may trust in God in Christ to overcome it. Paul exhorted the Colossians to be rooted in Christ, not the philosophies of the world (Colossians 2:6-10). All of the “-isms” of the world may contain some truth and wisdom, but all of them maintain elements contrary to God’s revealed purposes in Christ. Throughout time well-intentioned people have sought to “baptize” various worldly ideologies to fit a Christian mold, from Platonism to modern capitalism and nationalism; time has exposed the folly of all such endeavors, often to the harm of the witness of the faith. We must make Christ the ground and foundation of the way we approach the world, and not try to make Jesus fit what is commendable, or condemned, within the world.

The Christian is not the judge; God is (Romans 14:10-13, James 4:11-12). Nothing is right or wrong because the Christian thinks it is right or wrong; the experience of a Christian or someone whom he or she loves does not change the revealed will of God on any issue. We must own our perspectives as our own and give diligence lest we pervert the purposes of God in Christ because of our own inadequacies, insecurities, projections, or desires. Likewise, nothing is right or wrong merely because it is the opposite of what those with whom we disagree believe or practice. Sin is always crouching at the door, looking for an opportunity to seize us in rebellion against God’s purposes, hardening the heart to go in its own way and not after the ways of God. We do not know better than He; may we humbly submit to His purposes in Christ, and be ever careful with how we understand His purposes in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and Proper Perspective appeared first on de Verbo vitae.