Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 43

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.

The Christian and Unity

What is Christianity all about? Many people consider Christianity to be mostly about Jesus dying for the sins of mankind. Indeed (John 3:16); but why did Jesus have to die for the sins of mankind? To this many would answer in terms of allowing us to go to heaven; perhaps so (John 14:1-3), but why would God want us to be in heaven or any such thing? God wants us to be reconciled in relationship with mankind and among mankind (Romans 5:5-11, Ephesians 2:1-18). Why would God want to reconcile Himself to people, or among people themselves? He Himself is One in relational unity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, perfectly one (Deuteronomy 6:4, John 17:20-23). Since God is one, God desires to be one with humans whom He made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

The Lord Jesus Himself made all these powerful truths known in John 17:20-23, and yet there Jesus’ whole purpose is praying before His Father for all who would believe in Him to be one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ prayer would have Christians maintain unity among themselves as God is one in Himself.

Paul wrote extensively regarding the great things which God has accomplished for us in Christ: every spiritual blessing, election, predestination for adoption as sons, the down payment of the Spirit, His love, grace, and mercy displayed in salvation, reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles through the killing of hostility between them on the cross, the manifestation of God’s purposes in the church, and to what end (Ephesians 1:1-3:21)? That Christians might give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).

Therefore in Ephesians 4:3 Paul well establishes the importance and imperative of the pursuit of unity among Christians. And yet Christians must remember that their unity is not something they have or even could accomplish through their own efforts: Paul does not tell Christians to work to become unified, but to strive diligently to maintain the unity of the Spirit. If we have been baptized into Christ, we have been baptized into the one Spirit of God into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13); Paul envisioned Christians as built up into one temple filled with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18-22). Paul would go on to emphasize the “oneness” of all things: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father (Ephesians 4:4-6). We might take this message and use it polemically to decry the fractured state of “Christendom,” insisting on the importance of the unity of the faith; there are times in which it is appropriate to do so, but we must always keep Paul’s original reason for saying as much in mind. As God is one, so God has made believers in Christ one with Him and with each other through Jesus’ death on the cross (Ephesians 2:1-22).

Christians must be “eager” or “work diligently” to keep that unity in the Spirit. Yes, Christians are also called to be eager or to work diligently to present themselves as approved before God, workmen who have no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Christians must recognize the imperative of each. We cannot imagine we will be able to stand before God as approved if we proved so eager to argue regarding the word of truth that we neglected to maintain the unity of the Spirit; there can be little unity in the Spirit if many heed false teachings and teachers and fall away from the living God (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1-22). Unity in the faith does not happen automatically or on its own; it must be cultivated and developed. To accept the same teachings as true doctrine is not unity; to be one, Christians must not only believe the truth of God in Christ, but to work together to build up the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit.

Christians are to eagerly work to keep the unity of the Spirit “in the bond of peace.” Paul wrote as a “prisoner” in the Lord (Ephesians 4:1); as he is imprisoned by the Roman authorities, Christians are to consider themselves as “imprisoned” by peace. It is a startling yet compelling image: normally we do not associate binding, chaining, or imprisonment with peace but with far less pleasant circumstances. God has made peace between Himself and mankind and among humans thanks to Jesus’ death on the cross (Romans 5:1-11, Ephesians 2:1-18); Christians, therefore, must reckon themselves as constrained by peace. They ought to seek to maintain and pursue peace with each other, not looking for fights, contentiousness, or to exacerbate divisions, all of which are works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).

How can Christians keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Paul had previously established a set of dispositions and behaviors which allow for unity to flourish in any relationship: humility, gentleness/meekness, patience, tolerance/forbearance, and love (Ephesians 4:2). Christians recognize their sinful past and unworthiness to stand before God on their own merits; they see Jesus, the only Man who ever had reason to be arrogant, yet served humbly; therefore, Christians must remain humble and not think too highly of themselves and their opinions (Matthew 20:25-28, Romans 12:3, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:5-11). Sharp words and aggression exacerbate problems; gentle words and behaviors ameliorate difficulties (Proverbs 15:1). Other people easily get on nerves and do not seem to learn or change quickly enough; yet would not God have as much right to say the same about us? In any relationship we must learn to accept the thornier parts of people as well as the more pleasant aspects of their disposition, and so it must be among the Lord’s people as well.

If Christians strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, manifesting love, humility, gentleness, patience, and tolerance for one another, they are doing well in walking worthily of the calling with which they have been called, for as God is one in relational unity, so God would have us be one in Him in unity (John 17:20-23, Ephesians 4:1). Far too often, unfortunately, Christians prove more like the world than like Jesus, easily instigated to arrogance, contentiousness, intolerance, impetuousness, and all leading to divisiveness and factionalism. We must repent of all such attitudes and behaviors; we must grow in humility, love, patience, gentleness, and tolerance, maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; we must reflect the relational unity of God among ourselves. May we be one as God is one and establish God’s full purpose for humanity in the church!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Concerning the Continued Bodily Existence of Our Lord

The core message of the Christian faith is the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-7); this whole Gospel message itself gravitates around the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. If Jesus has not been raised, then we are lost in our sins, our faith is in vain, and we of all people are most pitiable (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). And yet in many parts of modern “Christendom,” especially within Evangelicalism, and even among the Lord’s people, the importance and nature of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and the hope of bodily resurrection of believers in Him has been downplayed or neglected. The reasons for such lack of emphasis are legion, involving everything from the continued influence of Greek philosophy and Gnosticism to the overtly “heavenly” emphasis found in the songbook. As a result critical truths of the Gospel, held consistently and firmly by those of “orthodox” Christian belief for generations, has been missed or neglected. Of these none have proven as controversial as whether the Lord Jesus continues to exist in heaven in the resurrection body. In this treatise we shall contend that the Lord Jesus remains in His resurrection body to this day; we shall seek to prove this abundantly from the pages of Scripture.

The Historical Narrative

The story of Jesus’ resurrection is set forth in Matthew 28:1-20, Mark 16:1-20, Luke 24:1-53, John 20:1-21:20, and Acts 1:1-11. We will highlight certain aspects of the story to illustrate our purposes below.

Jesus’ soul/spirit/divinity did not die. At no point in the narrative is it suggested that God the Son died or that Jesus’ soul/spirit died. In Luke 23:43 Jesus assured the thief on the cross of being with Him today in “Paradise”; Peter would insist on Psalm 16:9-11 as David testifying to the resurrection of Jesus: whereas David’s tomb (and ostensibly his body within it) remained in Jerusalem to that day, and so he was not talking of himself, but someone to come, thus Jesus’ soul was not left in “Hades”, but returned to His body which was raised from the dead (Acts 2:25-32). The New Testament provides no confidence for any view which would suggest Jesus suffered spiritual death at any point in His existence; the citation of Psalm 22:1 in Matthew 27:46 need not be true in fact but in perception (and as a reference to the whole Psalm), and if God the Son were to be truly separated from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in any way for any amount of time, God would no longer be one in relational unity but truly three gods as the pagans and the Muslims allege (contra John 17:20-23). Not for nothing does the text say that “Jesus yielded up His spirit” (Matthew 27:50); His spirit did not die, but experienced the spiritual state of the afterlife until the day of resurrection. Thus resurrection cannot be mere spiritual illumination, enlightenment, or even transformation; Jesus spent time in pure spirit form for a short period of time, and then experienced the resurrection.

Resurrection, by definition, involved the resuscitation of the physical body. Matthew provides a bizarre detail in Matthew 27:52-53, claiming that holy ones came out of the tombs when Jesus was raised, entered Jerusalem, and appeared to many. This claim engenders more questions than it may answer; nevertheless, it again reinforces how within Second Temple Judaism, resurrection was understood first and foremost as the resuscitation/reanimation of the physical body.

The tomb was empty. The Evangelists emphasize the first evidence of the resurrection is the empty tomb. Mary, Peter, and John see the tomb empty; Peter and John note how the grave cloth lay on the ground with the face cloth folded by itself, hardly the behavior of people stealing a corpse in the dead of night (John 20:1-7). Not only is the body not there, but the reason why it is not there is firmly declared by the angel: Jesus is not there, for He is risen (Matthew 28:6).

Similarity and Dissimilarity. Within their narratives the Evangelists note points of similarity and dissimilarity regarding Jesus from before and after the resurrection. The women and disciples perceive Him as Jesus (Luke 24:40-43, John 20:16). And yet neither the women nor the disciples recognize Him immediately; He is able to enter locked rooms, and seems to move between places at speeds not feasible by any human means of the age (Luke 24:16, John 20:26). Granted, there were times in His previous life when Jesus miraculously escaped from crowds (e.g. Luke 4:30, John 8:59); but this seems to be of a different order, perhaps suggesting Jesus had transcended the space-time continuum.

Jesus’ resurrection body was incontrovertibly substantial. The disciples were invited to touch Jesus, to place their hands in His wounds; He ate in their midst, explicitly saying He was not a spirit but had flesh and bones (Luke 24:40-43, John 20:24-29). We have good reason to believe Jesus’ resurrection body was transformed physicality (a la Wright’s “transphysical”; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, Philippians 3:21), yet sufficiently “physical” to be able to be touched, to consume food, and to be treated as fully human.

Jesus ascended in the resurrection body. The book of Acts began by describing Jesus’ ascension: He had appeared to His disciples as alive many times and taught them regarding the Kingdom; after a final message, Jesus was “taken up,” and a cloud received Him out of their sight (Acts 1:1-9). Two angels then appeared to encourage the disciples, assuring them how Jesus would return from heaven “in the like manner” as they had seen Him received up into heaven (Acts 1:10-11).

At no point in the narrative are we told that Jesus divested Himself of His resurrection body. From the moment of His resurrection through His ascension Jesus is spoken of as appearing to people in the resurrection body.

Evidence for Jesus’ Continued Existence in the Resurrection Body

From the above we have seen Jesus as raised in the body and ascended in the resurrection body. Let us now consider the New Testament evidence demonstrating Jesus’ continued existence in that resurrection body since His ascension.

Jesus as the “Son of Man”. Throughout the Gospels Jesus’ favorite oblique way of speaking regarding Himself is to speak of the “Son of Man.” “Son of Man” represents a good Hebraic idiom; “son of” is a way of denoting a relationship, and at its basic level of meaning “Son of man” means a human, as seen in the equivalent parallelism of Psalm 8:4:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? / And the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Yet without a doubt Jesus’ use of the “Son of Man” is informed by its use in Daniel 7:13-14:

I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The Danielic “Son of Man” has Messianic connotations for certain, something well understood not only by Jesus but also His opponents (cf. Matthew 26:63-66). Therefore, when Jesus speaks of Himself as the “Son of Man,” He does not merely speak of His humanity, but speaks also of this Messianic role, the one who would receive the everlasting dominion. Nevertheless, even if “Son of Man” means more than “human” when used in reference to Jesus, there is no basis from the New Testament to suggest it means anything less. If anything, Jesus’ resurrection more fully explains how anyone “like a son of man” could enter the heavenly realm and obtain an eternal Kingdom: as we shall see, once Jesus died for sin, death no longer has any power over Him, and so He can continue to live for eternity in the resurrection body as the Son of Man (cf. Romans 6:1-11).

Not only does the Danielic “Son of Man” feature prominently in Jesus’ self-conception and ministry, He will also speak of Himself as the “Son of Man” in demonstrably post-ascension contexts: as in the Kingdom and in returning in Judgment (Matthew 13:41, 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44, 25:31, 26:64, Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62, Luke 9:26, 12:40, 17:22, 24, 26, 30, 18:8, 21:27, 36, 22:69, John 6:62). In this way Jesus expected to remain human after His resurrection and ascension.

Throughout the Bible a human is defined quite specifically as a person made in God’s image with a body and soul/spirit (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7). We have no Biblical basis to suggest that a person’s disembodied soul/spirit is still reckoned to be a human being. Thus, if Jesus remains the Son of Man and thus human, and Jesus thus remains in the resurrection body, both the Son of God and the Son of Man, to this day.

Stephen’s Witness. It is written in Acts 7:55-56:

But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.”

Stephen is about to be martyred for his witness for Jesus. Luke first explained what Stephen saw: a vision of God’s glory and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). Luke then records Stephen’s actual words; we do well to note that Stephen calls Jesus “the Son of Man” in this instance. We are to understand a direct association between Acts 7:55-56 and Matthew 26:63/Mark 14:62/Luke 22:69: as Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and was condemned to death and spoke of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, so now Stephen stands before the Sanhedrin, about to be killed by its members, but spoke of actually seeing the Son of Man at the right hand of God, and all it would imply based on Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14. Nevertheless, Stephen well understood what “Son of Man” meant, and he testified that he saw Jesus as the Son of Man, the Human One, well after His ascension into heaven. Stephen thus bears witness of Jesus’ continuing existence in the resurrection body after His ascension.

Paul’s Witness. The Apostle Paul insisted upon his standing as an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:8. The New Testament does not record Paul as seeing Jesus at all during His life, death, or resurrection. The first time Paul is confronted by Jesus is in the vision on the road to Damascus as recorded in Acts 9:1-9 and retold in Acts 22:3-11, 26:12-18. We have some assurance that Paul speaks of this particular episode in 1 Corinthians 15:8: he saw Jesus “last of all,” as one “untimely born,” an ektromati, literally a miscarriage, one born out of due time.

While Paul recognized the temporal difference between his witness of Jesus and those who came before him, he yet nevertheless insisted that his witness was of equal worth and standing as all those who came before. We can know for certain that all the witnesses Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 saw Jesus in the resurrection body; they are otherwise attested in Matthew 28:1-20, Mark 16:1-6, Luke 24:1-53, and John 20:1-21:25. If they all saw Jesus in the resurrection body, and Paul is an equal witness to them, then Paul must have seen Jesus in the resurrection body as well, even though he saw Him long after his ascension. By considering himself a witness of Jesus in the resurrection, Paul affirmed Jesus’ continuing existence in the resurrection body after His ascension.

Romans 6:1-11. As it is written:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.

While Paul here does speak of baptism as a type of resurrection, the ground of its power is in Jesus’ actual, substantive death and resurrection. We have already affirmed that at no point did Jesus’ divinity or soul/spirit die; therefore, the only thing which died or even could die was Jesus’ body. If Jesus divested Himself of His resurrection body and returned to His form as the pre-Incarnate Word (cf. John 1:1), Romans 6:1-11 makes no sense whatsoever. Jesus dies no more because He died to sin; death no longer has dominion over Him (Romans 6:9-10); this was never true of God the Son per se, since God is immortal. It can only refer to Jesus’ humanity. And so when Paul speaks of Jesus as (presently) living in this life He lives to God (Romans 6:10), it must center on His resurrected body, the only “part” of Jesus to truly experience death. In this way Paul also explains how Jesus can continue to serve as Lord for generation after generation: death no longer has power over Him in His resurrection body, and so not only does He endure perpetually within it, we as Christians have the hope of sharing in that perpetuity when our bodies are raised from the dead on the final day (Romans 6:5). Paul’s exposition in Romans 6:1-11 depends upon Jesus’ continuing existence in His resurrection body.

Philippians 3:20-21. As it is written:

For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.

Throughout Philippians 3:1-21 Paul has centered his hope on the resurrection from the dead. As he concludes this part of the message Paul spoke of our confidence as Christians, that Christ will return one day and will transform our lowly bodies to be conformed to the body of His glory, and He will do so through the power which He is presently using to subject things to Himself (Philippians 3:21). Paul here expects us to become then as He is now, a message thoroughly consistent with John’s expectation in 1 John 3:2 (since, as we have seen above from Matthew 25:31 and Acts 1:11, Jesus will return as He came, and as the Son of Man). As in Romans 6:1-11, so in Philippians 3:21: Paul’s exposition depends on Jesus’ continuing existence in His resurrection body.

1 Timothy 2:5. As it is written:

For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.

By common confession Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy sometime in the early 60s. Paul spoke to Timothy of Jesus as the Mediator between God and men, a role He is able to uniquely fulfill since He is Himself “man,” anthropos in Greek, the word used to speak generically of us as humans. Thus, in 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul spoke of Jesus as human in the present tense, as a continuing reality. As mentioned earlier, a mere spirit/soul is not a human; a human is a person, body and soul/spirit. Thus Paul again confirms Jesus’ continuing existence in His resurrection body over 30 years after His ascension.

Lack of New Testament Contradiction. We have seen the witness of Jesus, the Evangelists, Stephen, and Paul, all of whom attest to Jesus’ continuing existence in the resurrection body after His ascension. We must also note the conspicuous lack of any explicit declaration to the contrary. In no New Testament passage is it declared or even suggested that Jesus divested Himself of His resurrection body when He ascended to the Father or at some point afterward. In no New Testament passage do we hear of a glorification or transformation of Jesus at any point after His resurrection until this day; the text throughout speaks of the moment of transformation and glorification as happening when He is raised from the dead.

From all of this evidence we do well to conclude that Jesus remains in His resurrection body to this day, and will continue to live in His resurrection body until at least the end of Judgment, if not beyond.

Addressing Concerns

With such abundant Biblical evidence and no explicit word which might confuse or contradict the matter, how has such a position become so controversial? We will consider many common concerns and attempt to address them.

A “new doctrine.” Many, upon hearing these things, are concerned that they represent some kind of “new” doctrine, an innovation.

While hearing this may be new to many people, the belief is not itself new. The belief of Jesus as continuing to exist in the resurrection body was affirmed by Christians upholding “orthodoxy” for generations. Even medieval theologians and devotional authors presumed it. For most of the history of Christianity it remained prevalent; it has only been downplayed or neglected within the past few generations. If you do not trust my witness, it is something which Roger Olson, a noted historian of Christian denominations, has noted as well.

We could easily argue that it is the belief that somehow at some point Jesus divested Himself of His body is the new innovation, a Gnostic-esque heresy. May we all be as the Bereans and judge doctrinal presentations by what is written in the Scriptures, not on our impression of what is old or new (cf. Acts 17:10-11).

Theological Concerns. In much of Evangelicalism and among the Lord’s people great emphasis has been placed on Jesus’ divinity and standing as the Son of God. Attempts to insist on Jesus’ humanity are often looked upon with skepticism, often unfairly labeled as associated with the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses or some other such group. In such a climate, consideration of Jesus as remaining in the resurrection body is bound to cause theological concerns, as if one is negating Jesus’ divinity. God is spirit, after all (John 4:24), and we often associate the spiritual realm with heaven, and since in 1 Corinthians 15:50 flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, how can Jesus have a body in heaven?

We will address 1 Corinthians 15:50 in greater detail below, but for the time being we do well to note that both Enoch and Elijah were translated into heaven bodily (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11-12). Our understanding of the spiritual realm is very limited; not enough has been revealed to so definitively declare that Jesus could not remain in His resurrection body in heaven, and anyways, one would still have to contend with all of the evidence given above.

Accepting Jesus’ continuing existence in His resurrection body need not negate or lessen the truth that Jesus remains fully God. Paul affirmed that Jesus was declared the Son of God in the resurrection (Romans 1:4). While we must be careful lest we drift into heresies by which we emphasize Jesus’ humanity over His divinity, as in Adoptionism, Arianism, or as the Jehovah’s Witnesses did and do, we must be equally careful lest we emphasize Jesus’ divinity over His humanity, which is just as heretical, as the Gnostics and Christian Scientists and others did and do. If anything, the latter proves more pernicious: John had to explicitly warn against those who denied the bodily existence of Jesus (1 John 4:1-4, 2 John 1:5-10).

In reality, it is hard for us to imagine how Jesus could be both fully God and fully man. It is the mystery of the Incarnation, that moment when the Word became flesh, and Jesus became Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:21-25, John 1:1, 14, 18). But if we accept on faith that Jesus lived in this life as fully God and fully human, there is nothing to stop us to accept that Jesus continues to exist in the resurrection body as fully God and fully human. There is nothing about Jesus in the resurrection body that would not prove equally problematic in terms of Jesus’ Incarnation. Furthermore, the Scriptures never speak of Jesus returning to the same form as He existed before the Incarnation; it is an assumption, an inference being imposed upon the text without any Scriptural warrant to justify it.

For years too much emphasis has been placed on Jesus as the Son of God and not nearly enough on Jesus as the Son of Man and all that demands. We must return to the Biblical balance and affirm both equally; when we do so, we recognize there is no theological difficulty with Jesus remaining fully God and yet also fully human in His resurrection body.

Spiritual Bodies and 1 Corinthians 15:50. On account of the strong “heaven” and “spiritual” emphasis within Evangelicalism and even among the Lord’s people, the bodily element of the resurrection has been neglected or downplayed in many circles. Many look at 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 and in it see a justification for believing in a “spiritual body,” often in contrast to anything physically substantive, and “proven” by 1 Corinthians 15:50a, Paul’s declaration that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

There are many difficult and confusing aspects of 1 Corinthians 15:35-58, and we may not be able to make complete sense of everything. Nevertheless, Paul clearly expected Jesus’ resurrection to be the model and example for what all believers in Him will experience on the final day (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). In 1 Corinthians 15:44-46 Paul makes a contrast between the present body as a psuchikos body, and the body in the resurrection as a pneumatikos body. These terms are often translated as “natural” and “spiritual,” which leads to such interpretations as the above, since people all too easily put the emphasis on the “natural” or “spiritual” form. And yet Paul provides a bit of explanation: the psuchikos body we currently have is directly associated with Adam in Genesis 2:7, in which God breathed the breath of life into Adam, and he became a living “soul” (in Greek, psuche). The psuche is here considered the life force within us; therefore, the “psychical” body is enlivened/empowered by the psuche. The corresponding parallel would mean that the “pneumatical” body is enlivened/empowered by the pneuma, or “spirit”, perhaps the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul is not speaking of some ethereal spirit form; he speaks of a body, the pneumatical body indeed, but no less a body.

And so we come to 1 Corinthians 15:50a:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God…

On its own it would seem rather damning to any hope of redemption of the body. But this fragment of a verse is not on its own:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

“O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?”

The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:50-57).

“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom,” yes, but also “neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Paul then speaks of a mystery, of what will happen: we will all be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52a). In this change we will be raised incorruptible: this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality, and then death will be fully overcome (1 Corinthians 15:52b-57). It is not our spirit or soul which is mortal and corruptible, but our bodies; thus our bodies will be transformed for immortality and incorruption.

But what of the physical body? It is transformed, yes, but not eliminated. No passage in the New Testament speaks or even frames the discussion of the transformation of resurrection in terms of the destruction or elimination of the physical body. All such discussions of transformation envision it in terms of enhancement, not of reduction. The corruptible body “puts on” incorruption; this mortal body shall “put on” immortality. We yearn, not to be unclothed, but further clothed (2 Corinthians 5:1-4).

Therefore, yes, this present flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, since we remain mortal and corruptible. But on the resurrection day, this mortal and corruptible flesh and blood will be raised and then transformed to be incorruptible and immortal, and will be able to inherit the Kingdom of God, just like Jesus, on the day of His resurrection, was raised and then transformed to be incorruptible and immortal, and inherited the Kingdom of God and still reigns over it.

There is much we do not and cannot yet understand about the resurrection body (1 John 3:2). Nevertheless, we have confidence we will be like Jesus: He did not become some entirely non-physical, non-substantive “spiritual body,” but a transformed body which could yet be touched and could eat in this plane of existence, and so it will be for us. No, corruptible flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; but the new heavens and the new earth are reserved for those who obtain the resurrection of life and its attendant resurrection body (John 5:28-29, Revelation 21:1-22:6)!

Conclusion

We have explored the Scriptures surrounding Jesus’ resurrection and continued existence after the resurrection. We have seen from the historical narratives and later doctrinal expositions how Jesus and the Apostles provided strong evidence for Jesus’ continued existence in His resurrection body during the forty days after His resurrection, for years after His ascension, and by all accounts will continue until at least the day of Judgment if not beyond in the resurrection body. We have addressed various concerns regarding this doctrine and have found all detractions wanting. May we recognize and affirm that Jesus continues to serve as Lord in His resurrection body, the Son of God and Son of Man, and eagerly await His return so that we may become like Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Concerning the Continued Bodily Existence of Our Lord appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Bible Translations, I: History of Translations

Anyone who would seek to learn more about the purposes of God as made known in the Bible is immediately faced with a major obstacle: which version or translation should be used? We are faced with an alphabet soup of translation abbreviations: KJV, NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, etc. What do they all mean? Why do so many translations exist? Which should I be using? Let us explore Bible translations and versions; to do so, we do well to understand the history of the Bible so as to understand why so many translations exist.

From Greek to Latin and Back to Greek Again

The New Testament began in the Mediterranean world, the record of events of Jesus Christ and His followers in the first century. At that time, the majority of the eastern Mediterranean world spoke in Greek; while each area had their own native tongue, Greek was the universal language of that part of the world. Therefore, when the texts of the New Testament were first written, they were in Greek. Our modern translations, in order to be the most accurate they can be, are thus derived from Greek texts.

Latin prevailed over Greek in the western part of the Mediterranean, however. The Bible was translated into Latin at an early stage in Christian history; in the fifth century Jerome worked to standardize the translation and root the Old Testament in the Hebrew original over the Greek translation (the Septuagint). Over time Jerome’s version became the standard and called the Latin Vulgate; it was the Bible in Western Europe for over seven hundred years.

Wars, famine, and religious arguments divided the western part of the Mediterranean from the eastern by the eleventh century. Knowledge of Greek in the West slowly faded into oblivion. However, the invasion of Constantinople (modern Istanbul, former capital of the Byzantine Empire) in the fifteenth century CE forced the Orthodox there to flee west, bringing their knowledge of Greek. This re-emergence of the understanding of Greek brought about renewed interest in the text of the Bible in its original language, and a German named Desiderius Erasmus was a principal scholar in this field. He was able to find six or seven copies of the Bible in Greek, dating from the tenth to thirteenth centuries CE, and from those texts he edited his version of the Bible in Greek, which was later called the Textus Receptus, or TR. It is from this text that the earliest modern translations of the New Testament in English were made.

The Bible in English

The same forces which led to a greater appreciation of Greek also fueled the Reformation. In England previous attempts had been made to translate the Bible into English so that all the people could understand God’s Word in previous centuries; by the middle of the sixteenth century William Tyndale worked diligently to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible into English. Within the next thirty years six other versions would be translated from the original texts into English (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible).

As a result of the multiplication of versions in English and its resulting confusion, in the early seventeenth century, King James I of England commissioned Hebrew and Greek scholars in English universities to create a new version based on the older translations, correcting those texts when the need arose. Using these texts along with Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, these scholars created the King James Version (KJV), also called the Authorized Version (AV), in 1611. At first, most continued to prefer the Geneva Bible; over time, the King James Version would find preeminence among English speaking Christians, and would become the Bible in English for almost three hundred years.

Not a few people learned English and how to read and write thanks to the King James Version. Over time, however, the Elizabethan English of the KJV proved more and more antiquated, and today proves difficult for the modern English reader to understand. Thus, in the late 20th century, the KJV was revised to conform to modern English; the result is the New King James Version (NKJV), published since 1982.

New Findings, New Versions

During the nineteenth century Western Europeans, flush with developments and power thanks to the Industrial Revolution, sought to better understand their heritage in the past. The discipline of archaeology developed during this time; conquest and influence provided Westerners with heretofore unprecedented access to the Eastern Mediterranean world. Through archaeological expeditions and exploration of ancient monasteries multiple fragments and manuscripts of the New Testament were found.

Many of these new fragments and manuscripts varied in consistent ways from Erasmus’ Textus Receptus; Wescott and Hort would publish their own edition of the Greek New Testament in the late nineteenth century. A committee of scholars published the Revised Version (RV) in 1881 in England; as its name suggests, it was a revision of the KJV based on the more ancient manuscript evidence provided in Westcott and Hort’s Greek text. Twenty years later the Revised Version was prepared and edited by a committee of American scholars for use in America, and was published as the American Standard Version (ASV) in 1901.

The American Standard Version would become the foundation for most of our modern versions of the Bible in English, as it is based on the oldest witnesses to the New Testament that we have in our possession. In 1952 the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was published, modernizing and making some changes to the ASV; in 1974, as a result of evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, among other reasons, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was published. In 1971, the Lockman Foundation adapted the ASV into more modern language, publishing the New American Standard Bible (NASB); further revisions to the NASB came out in 1995, now known as the New American Standard Bible Updated (NASU). In 1998 the English Standard Version (ESV) was developed to set forth the Bible in the ASV tradition in clearer English.

In recent years many have elected to make a shift in approach in translations away from word-for-word translation (“functional equivalence”) to a more thought-for-thought translation (“dynamic equivalence”). The first and greatest of these versions is the New International Version (NIV) of 1967, itself modified in the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV; 1996), and updated in 2011 (NIV 2011). A similar process has led to the Good News Bible (GNT; also “Today’s English Bible”; 1976), the Contemporary English Version (CEV; also “The Bible for Today’s Family”; 1995), the New Living Translation (NLT; marketed also as “The Book”; 1996), the Common English Bible (CEB; 2011) and many others.

Many other translations exist for other reasons: some “literal” translations, some translations still based on the Textus Receptus or the so-called “Majority” Text, and some as translations sponsored for a given denomination (Roman Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.). In future articles we will explore all these Bible translations and versions in greater detail. May we seek to learn of God in Christ from the Scriptures and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Bible Translations, I: History of Translations appeared first on de Verbo vitae.