Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 6

The Apostle Paul to the Church in Philippi

From Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and deacons. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! (Philippians 1:1-2)

Paul had been going through it, although Epaphroditus arguably had it much worse. Despite it all, Paul had much for which to be thankful regarding the Philippian Christians, and it was not burdensome for him to send a letter back to them with Epaphroditus.

The letter to the “saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” came from “Paul and Timothy” in Philippians 1:1; while Paul would write some letters like this in the first person plural (e.g. 1 Thessalonians), throughout Philippians he spoke in the first person singular, and so it is really Paul’s voice throughout the letter. Perhaps Timothy was Paul’s amanuensis, the person actually writing the letter which Paul was dictating; perhaps Paul listed him as a fellow letter writer to enhance his standing among the Philippian Christians (cf. Philippians 2:19-22).

Paul’s opening remains notable for its brevity: he spoke of himself and Timothy as “slaves of Christ Jesus,” and nothing more (Philippians 1:1). He did not provide an elaborate and/or defensive description of himself, as to the Romans or Galatians. Such most likely attested to the strength and familiarity of the relationship between Paul and the Philippian Christians: it was enough to speak of himself in the humble term of Christ’s slave.

We should not read too much into Paul writing to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,” as if there were multiple churches in Philippi, unlike in Romans 1:9 as indicated in Romans 16:1-16. Instead, he made appeal to how the church in Philippi had matured to the point of enjoying appropriate organization: he wrote to “all the saints…with the overseers and deacons,” indicating overseers (or bishops) had been appointed over the church at some point previously (Philippians 1:1). Overseers were also called elders or pastors (cf. 1 Peter 5:1-5), representing faithful Christian men whose blamelessness was attested by having met certain characteristics, and who were thus appointed to maintain the administration and oversight of the church in Philippi (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-8).

By the middle of the first century, Philippi had developed into a city of some significance. It lay in ancient Thrace at the foot of Mount Orbelos near the northern coast of the Aegean Sea. Philippi was originally colonized by Thasians and called Krenides around 360 BCE; within five years it was conquered by Philip II of Macedon and renamed in his honor to Philippi. Philip invested a lot of resources into Philippi on account of its proximity to gold mines and its prominent place along the main west-east road through Macedonia.

Philippi would become part of the Roman Empire after the Third Macedonian War in 168 BCE. But it would be the events surrounding the “Liberators’ Civil War” which would significantly alter Philippi’s trajectory: in 42 BCE, Octavian and Marc Antony would defeat Brutus and Cassius at the Battle of Philippi. Soon after, the victors granted retirement to some of their veteran soldiers in order to colonize Philippi; after Octavian became the Emperor Augustus, he expanded and reinforced this determination, and Philippi became known as Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis. Philippi maintained its prominence and gained wealth in the Roman period for the same reasons as in the days of the Macedonians: the local gold mines and the arterial road, then known as the Via Egnatia (Egnatian Way).

Therefore, while Philippi was a city in the province of Macedonia, surrounded by Greek cities speaking Greek and functioning in Greek ways, Philippi had become a Roman colony, featuring many more Latin speakers operating in Roman ways, and very much concerned with maintaining their status as a Roman colony. We can detect ways in which Paul will speak about Jesus and the Gospel in ways which align with these tendencies among the Philippians.

Luke told the story of the establishment of the church in Philippi in Acts 16:6-40. During what is popularly called his second missionary journey around 49-50 CE, Paul attempted to enter the northeastern area of Asia Minor, but was prevented by the Spirit from doing so (Acts 16:6-8). While at Troas, Paul received a vision of a Macedonian asking for assistance; he and his associates (along with Luke himself) then traveled to Philippi (Acts 16:9-12).

Paul’s custom was to first seek out the Jewish population of a given town (cf. Acts 17:1-2); since they visited a riverbank at which they expected a group of Jewish people to meet on the Sabbath, we conclude Philippi did not have a sufficient Jewish population for a synagogue (Acts 16:13). Some women did gather there, and Paul preached to them; notably, a woman involved in the purple cloth business from Thyatira named Lydia proved receptive to the Gospel, and she welcomed Paul and his associates into her house upon her conversion (Acts 16:14-15).

Luke did not record how long Paul spent in Philippi. A slave girl with a demonic spirit of divination would persistently follow after Paul, “testifying” how he and his associates were servants of the Most High God and who proclaimed the way of salvation (Acts 16:16-17). At some point Paul got so annoyed he commanded the spirit to leave her, which it did (Acts 16:18). Since her owners just lost their source of profit, they seized Paul and Silas and brought them before the authorities, accusing them as Jewish people causing confusion and proclaiming customs which were unlawful for Romans to practice, and the crowd got in on it (Acts 16:19-21). The magistrates had Paul and Silas stripped and beaten and then jailed them (Acts 16:23).

This was the circumstance in which Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns, and a great earthquake took place, opening up all the prison doors and loosing their chains (Acts 16:24-26). The jailer was about to commit suicide, which was better for him according to the Roman military code of honor than to be found guilty of having lost all the prisoners, but Paul charged him to do no such thing, because all the prisoners remained present (Acts 16:27-28). The jailer, quite aware some supernatural force was at work, fell at Paul and Silas’ feet and wanted to know how he could be saved; the jailer brought them into his house, and Paul preached the Gospel to them all, and they believed and were baptized (Acts 16:29-34).

The next day the magistrates commanded for Paul and Silas to be released; Paul reported to the jailers how they had just beaten Roman citizens publicly and without a proper trial, and yet now they were to be sent away secretly (Acts 16:35-37)? When the magistrates heard about this, they became very afraid: higher level Roman officials would not look kindly on Roman citizens being thus treated, and so the magistrates personally came to Paul and Silas, apologized, but continued to ask them to leave the city (Acts 16:38-39). We generally understand Paul’s behavior here as not seeking self-justification, but providing some protection for the Christians: the magistrates would not likely want to pursue any further charges or harassment against any of the Christians in Philippi, at least for a while. After encouraging the Christians at Lydia’s, Paul and Silas departed (Acts 16:40); the transition from first person plural to third person plural in Acts 17:1 strongly suggests Luke remained in Philippi.

A few years later Paul returned to visit the Christians in Macedonia and would set sail from Philippi, after ostensibly spending some time with the Christians there (ca. Spring 56; cf. Acts 20:1-6).

While Paul’s letter to the Philippians did not explicitly identify the time at or location from which Paul wrote, contextual indicators strongly favor Rome during Paul’s house arrest (ca. 62; cf. Acts 28:11-31). In Philippians 1:13, Paul would speak of himself as imprisoned and as bearing witness to the imperial guard; he sent greetings from the saints in Caesar’s household in Philippians 4:22. Some have tried to suggest Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus or Caesarea when writing Philippians, thus between 55-59, but these theories present more problems than they might solve. Evidence for an Ephesian imprisonment comes primarily from 2 Corinthians 1:3-11, seemed far more challenging than what Paul presented in the Philippian letter, and it would be difficult to understand the presence of the imperial guard or greetings from Caesar’s household. The latter also proves the major challenge with the Caesarea hypothesis.

Understanding Philippians as written by Paul from Rome around 62 can help us make the best sense of the situation. Sufficient time had passed for the church to grow and mature to the point of having overseers and deacons. The Philippian Christians would have maintained great care and concern for Paul, and seem to have sent Paul gifts at the hands of Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). The journey to Rome from Philippi would have been involved but by no means impossible or overly challenging. Paul would have gained insight into the situation of the church from Epaphroditus. Whether on the journey or when in Rome, Epaphroditus became terribly ill, and word had reached Philippi of his dire condition (Philippians 2:25-27). Even though Paul’s situation was still up in the air, he still felt it best to send Epaphroditus back to Philippi, and this letter was written to go with him to bear witness regarding Paul’s circumstances and as an opportunity to encourage the Philippian Christians and address matters Paul felt compelled to address sooner rather than later (cf. Philippians 2:23-24, 28-30).

Paul greeted the Christians of Philippi with a standard epistolary greeting wishing them peace and grace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:2). May we all endure and persevere in peace and grace from God in Christ through the Spirit, drawing encouragement and exhortation from what the Apostles wrote and did, and share in the faith in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Apostle Paul to the Church in Philippi appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

America as Israel

As human beings, we learn much through metaphor, illustration, and example. We tend to mentally associate two different persons, events, or concepts, one better known than the other, in order to facilitate better understanding. This is natural and has its advantages.

Christians will often attempt to do such things with their own society in contrast to some culture described in the Bible. This can have great value and effectiveness, for if we can provide an accurate parallel between our own society/culture and a society/culture in the Bible, we can take God’s instructions to that particular society and find relevant applications for ourselves. Note that this can only be effective when the parallel is accurate; it cannot merely be not the parallel we want, either in order to make ourselves seem better or, sadly, to make ourselves seem worse off. It must be the parallel that works the best.

As American society has become increasingly secular, and immorality has become more public, many have established parallels between our own society and that of Babylon. Babylon, on the basis of its empire and what they did to Judah and Jerusalem, receives a great amount of criticism for its ways. Isaiah provides one such critique in Isaiah 47:7-15. Particular mention is made of their focus on astrology, their reliance in their military might, the sexual excess of many, and of course the rampant idolatry.

This parallel has some value: America trusts greatly in its military might and in its primacy in the world, there are many idols that people are worshiping, and there is a lot of sexual excess. Nevertheless, this illustration has its distortions, and it can lead us to false conclusions. Most Babylonians had little idea of who YHWH was beyond as the God of Israel, one of the people they conquered; most Americans at least know something about Jesus, and most people are willing to even believe in Him. The Jewish people were entirely “the other” in Babylon; the books of Daniel and Esther provide many examples of the difficulties Jewish people encountered in the pagan lands. Christianity is not that foreign to America.

There are various ways in which we can profitably compare modern America to Babylon or even Rome, as long as we recognize the limitations and points of discontinuity in the comparison. Likewise, we might find parallels between modern America and Israel: specifically, the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

According to the author of the Kings narrative, the Kingdom of Israel was born out of YHWH’s response to the transgression of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-43). Its first king, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, did not change the god who was worshiped (Yahweh), but changed the location, object, and other aspects of the service to God (1 Kings 12:26-33). He rationalized the change in terms of expedience and cloaked it in the events of the past: “Behold, your gods who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,” golden calves just as in Exodus 32:1-35. He did this for political purposes, and all of the kings who followed him walked in the same footsteps.

The vast majority of the citizens of the Kingdom of Israel followed after their king. Baal worship came and went; there were times of decadence and religious reform, but those calves and those temples stayed put.

Now, when we read about the Kingdom of Israel, we hear all the negatives: their idolatry, their iniquity, their faithlessness toward God. We must not just consider the perspective revealed, but also what can be gained from the people of Israel themselves.

To the average Israelite living in the northern kingdom for the majority of its existence, everything seemed to be well. They were blessed with material resources; Israel was always more prosperous than Judah. They believed that they were Israelites, they worshiped Yahweh in temples erected for Him in Dan and Bethel, offering sacrifices there to the golden calves representing Yahweh who delivered them from Egypt. If you were to ask him who the God of Israel happened to be, he would answer that it was Yahweh, of course. His adherence to Yahweh as Israel’s national god, however, may or may not keep him from also providing due offerings to El, Baal, Astarte, or other Canaanite gods, just to “make sure” that the land would be fertile.

There were, of course, those gadflies: those prophets who had nothing good to say. The Israelites were of mixed minds toward these prophets: when times were bad, they would seek after them; if times were good, they were just downright irritating. Nothing was ever good enough: Jeroboam’s calves were wrong, the people worshiping on high places was wrong, and even Jehu in all his reforms still did not please Yahweh, according to these prophets. No matter how many other prophets spoke good news in the name of Yahweh, and no matter how clearly God had blessed the Israelites, these prophets, Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, and others, never stopped their complaints.

How could the Israelites go so wrong? They were willing to follow after the dictates of the kings over the revealed will of God, and the people were ignorant of God’s will, as Hosea indicates in Hosea 4:1-9:

Listen to YHWH’s message, you Israelites! For YHWH has a covenant lawsuit against the people of Israel. For there is neither faithfulness nor loyalty in the land, nor do they acknowledge God. There is only cursing, lying, murder, stealing, and adultery. They resort to violence and bloodshed. Therefore the land will mourn, and all its inhabitants will perish. The wild animals, the birds of the sky, and even the fish in the sea will perish. Do not let anyone accuse or contend against anyone else: for my case is against you priests! You stumble day and night, and the false prophets stumble with you; You have destroyed your own people! You have destroyed my people by failing to acknowledge me! Because you refuse to acknowledge me, I will reject you as my priests. Because you reject the law of your God, I will reject your descendants. The more the priests increased in numbers, the more they rebelled against me. They have turned their glorious calling into a shameful disgrace! They feed on the sin offerings of my people; their appetites long for their iniquity! I will deal with the people and priests together: I will punish them both for their ways, and I will repay them for their deeds.

The end of Israel is sobering: God delivers them into the hand of Assyria, and the people are exiled to other lands (2 Kings 17:7-23). Few, if any, return. The only remnant of ten of the tribes of Israel were the few left in the land and those who fled to Judah. Few states have ever been as obliterated as the Kingdom of Israel.

The parallels are many between Israel and America:

1. National religion. While America is officially religion-neutral, it is clear in practice that there is a variant of Christianity that represents Christian Americanism. In Christian Americanism, America is God’s land and Americans are God’s people. The condition of America is a direct reflection of God’s indication that this is His land, and its people are special to Him. In this Christian Americanism, it is enough to believe in Jesus, and to believe that He is a gun-toting, flag-waving American hero. Since you’re an American, and God loves and blesses America, that is sufficient.

This mentality has its origins in the Christian nation theology of the Puritans, and it falls into the same trap as Israel fell into. The audacity of the claims of Korah in his rebellion can only be understood in light of this flawed logic: God is our God, we are His people, therefore what we do is pleasing to God. You can see how well that worked out for Korah and his compatriots in Numbers 16:1-50.

This also caused the downfall of the Kingdom of Israel. Just because Israel was God’s people did not give them the right to entirely adapt the religious observance to conform to their will. No Israelite was going to be saved merely because of his birth: it was going to require their obedience.

2. Religion as tool of the State. Jeroboam made it abundantly clear from the beginning of his rule that the religion would serve the interests of the state, and not vice versa. In order to conform to the new political reality, the religious observance was changed; religious observance did not change the political reality. God’s desires and intentions were thrust aside for the benefit of the state.

America does the same thing, even if not officially. God is invoked to bless this country in its conflicts and difficulties, even if they are Biblically unjustifiable. The USA would love to have a moral citizenry, but would not appreciate any who would strictly hold to the teachings of Jesus. By in large, Christian Americanism is American first, Christian second: it serves the interests of the State.

3. Shallowness and ignorance. The faith of the Israelites was undoubtedly shallow: it moved to and fro with the winds of change, sometimes focused only on Yahweh, including other gods at other times also. As indicated, they reached this level of depravity on account of not knowing God’s will.

This is clearly present in America. Far too many people will profess belief but have no idea about many of the basics of the Christian religion. There are far more people professing Jesus Christ than having Christ live through them (cf. Galatians 2:20). The shallowness of faith has led to an ignorance of the Bible to a heretofore unknown level.

Just as the priests were faulted in Israel, so too must many religious persons in America. All of the doctrines of the faith are not being taught as they ought in many places. We have no reason to expect denominationalists to preach the full counsel of God, but I fear that brethren don’t either. The conflicts in the brotherhood papers talk about “feel good preaching” versus “preaching the distinctives”, yet in the end, neither of these represents the whole counsel of God. Doctrines and practices, works of the flesh and fruit of the Spirit, Old Testament and New Testament: all of these things must be preached in balance to inform and encourage.

4. Comfortable, yet perverted, religion. How could Israel get everything so wrong? Many modern Bible scholars will go so far as to say that the idea of Jerusalem as primary and Yahweh as a god without an image are inventions of a later time period in an attempt to exonerate the Israelites for their misdeeds. “They did not know any better.”

Such a justification is entirely unnecessary. History has provided plenty of examples of religion going quite astray when layers of tradition supersede what God previously revealed. When one compares the New Testament revelation to Roman Catholicism, or most Protestant churches, the distinctions are quite apparent.

Mankind, in their search for expedience and comfort, has always looked for shortcuts and easier ways to be religious. Conformity is easier than separation. It was easier for the Kingdom of Israel to have their own temples with the images that were familiar to people of the day and even to worship the gods of the other nations: after all, everyone else was doing it!

The same is true in America. Religious traditions are held as sacred, even if they come with no Biblical authority, or even when the Bible contradicts the tradition. There is no logic or rationale necessary for practicing Christian Americanism, because the tradition itself is self-justifying. It’s not comfortable investigating deeper and actually knowing what God reveals in the Bible, and what Jesus actually expects from us. It’s a whole lot easier to say that Jesus is real and that we should pray to Him when things get bad, and then sleep in Sunday morning, go to Wal-Mart in our SUVs Sunday evening, and to keep the kids active in school events on Wednesday evening, giving as little thought to God as possible. After all: everyone else is doing it!

5. True believers as enemies of the status quo and thus the state and its religion. Ahab called Elijah the “troubler of Israel” in 1 Kings 18:17. When we read the account of the events, we can understand, on a spiritual level, how the reverse is true. We must also understand why Ahab would say such a thing: after all, Israel was “fine.” Things were going quite well until Elijah brought forth this terrible drought, and he is the source of these difficulties. Elijah did trouble Israel: he was willing to question the status quo.

For this reason, the example of the Kingdom of Israel can speak to us in ways appeals to Babylon or Rome cannot: it is not because Americans are thoroughly ignorant of Christianity that causes the difficulty, but because they have a distorted view of Christianity that is promoted in the media and in other places. Christian Americanism is a nice status quo for the government: we have the appearance of having a god, we can claim to be a religious country, and yet not need to spend any time on it. We become the “troublers of America” when we stand up and speak the truth: God is bigger than America, God will judge America for what it’s doing, God is not content with people merely professing, but expects people to follow His commands (1 John 2:1-6). We go out and promote the truth in contrast to other religious claims (Matthew 28:18-20, 1 Peter 3:15); that’s troubling to the champions of tolerance and ecumenism who think “proselytism” is a four-letter word. We go out and say that there is right and wrong, and that sin will lead to condemnation (Galatians 5:19-23, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9): that’s troubling to all the people who think that truth is subjective and we all must establish our individual moral compasses. We go out and establish that God expects Christians to function as communities of believers, working to encourage one another and to strengthen His Kingdom (Acts 2:42-47, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Hebrews 10:24-25): and that’s troubling to all those individualists who find little worth in the church and don’t want to have yet another time commitment in life. We go out and say that it’s not enough to just believe, but one must obey (James 2:14-26): and that’s quite troubling for Christian Americanists. So also is the idea that God’s priorities and desires are not necessarily America’s priorities and desires.

So what happens? Those who teach the truths of the Bible and seek to live its message daily are branded as intolerant, quaint perhaps, but definitely obsolete, never happy about anything, always willing to chastise. They are looked upon with suspicion, since they are troubling the national status quo and bringing up uncomfortable concepts that may prove detrimental to many people. Better, of course, to ignore them and hope that they go away.

YHWH solemnly warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and all the seers, “Turn back from your evil ways; obey my commandments and rules that are recorded in the law. I ordered your ancestors to keep this law and sent my servants the prophets to remind you of its demands.”
But they did not pay attention and were as stubborn as their ancestors, who had not trusted YHWH their God. They rejected his rules, the covenant he had made with their ancestors, and the laws he had commanded them to obey. They paid allegiance to worthless idols, and so became worthless to YHWH. They copied the practices of the surrounding nations in blatant disregard of YHWH’s command. They abandoned all the commandments of YHWH their God; they made two metal calves and an Asherah pole, bowed down to all the stars in the sky, and worshiped Baal. They passed their sons and daughters through the fire, and practiced divination and omen reading. They committed themselves to doing evil in the sight of YHWH and made him angry. So YHWH was furious with Israel and rejected them; only the tribe of Judah was left (2 Kings 17:13-18).

Such was the end of Israel. They neglected God, they did not heed the warnings, and they were cast off.

The fate of America is not known; America is not actually Israel, and we cannot treat Americans ignorant of the Gospel as the prophets did the people of God. We cannot make such judgments about America as God did about Israel, but we sadly know the eternal fate of all the Americans who are seduced by Christian Americanism and not the true Gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9).

May we be like the prophets of old, and do what we can to proclaim God’s truth in the hope that some will hear, repent, and obey.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post America as Israel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Teaching of Christ

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son (2 John 1:9).

Many arguments and disputes have centered on what John the Elder meant when he spoke of the “teaching of Christ” in 2 John 1:9, and for understandable reasons. John condemned those who did not remain in the “teaching of Christ” as not having God; furthermore, anyone who would welcome or even greet such a person would share in their evil deeds (2 John 1:10-11). Who among us would want to stand condemned for having welcomed those whom God in Christ would have us reject?

Some have advocated for a more “maximalist” understanding of the “teaching of Christ,” suggesting almost any and every form of instruction of or regarding Jesus would be included. Others have argued for a “minimalist” understanding, in which only teaching regarding the identity and nature of Christ qualifies.

Many appeals are made to the original Greek meaning and grammar. “Teaching” in Greek is didache; the word properly means “teaching,” but “doctrine” is another and valid translation. Either way, the term itself cannot clarify the meaning of “teaching of Christ.”

Instead, many will appeal to the grammatical construction of “teaching of Christ.” In grammatical terms, “of Christ” is a genitive, most often a possessive form. The disputed grammatical issue involves whether “teaching of Christ” here represents an objective genitive or a subjective genitive. If it were an objective genitive, Christ would be the object of the instruction: the teaching regarding Jesus the Christ. If it were a subjective genitive, Christ would be the possessor of the teaching: Jesus’ teachings. “Minimalists” tend to favor the objective genitive reading, while “maximalists” will tend to emphasize a subjective genitive reading.

How can one determine whether a given genitive is objective or subjective? Generally, the context will provide evidence for one or the other. In terms of 2 John 1:9, however, one could make good contextual arguments for either form. In 2 John 1:7, John warned about deceivers, whom he calls antichrists, who deny Jesus came in the flesh; thus one can well argue how John would be warning against receiving and welcoming anyone who did not uphold appropriate teaching “regarding” Jesus’ humanity, and thus “teaching of Christ” would be understood as an objective genitive. But one could also argue John tended to use “teaching of” in subjective forms, as in John 7:16-17, Revelation 2:14-15; thus John would be warning about anyone who departed from Jesus’ teachings.

Arguments can therefore be made regarding “teaching of Christ” as either objective or subjective. Perhaps, as happens quite frequently in Biblical interpretation, the answer is yes: perhaps John was far less concerned about whether “teaching of Christ” was an objective or a subjective genitive, and perhaps both or either aspects can properly be seen as in mind.

A point of common agreement should be an understanding of 2 John in its context. John wrote as “the Elder” to the “Elect Lady,” which most agree is a way of speaking of another local church (2 John 1:1). He commended them for how they lived according to the truth, exhorting them to love one another, to walk according to the commandments, and to uphold the commandments as they had heard them from the beginning (2 John 1:2-6). He felt compelled to give this latter exhortation because of the deceivers who had gone out, those whom he described as not confessing Jesus as the Christ having come in the flesh; he spoke of them as deceivers and antichrists (2 John 1:7). John would have Christians watch out for such people lest they lose out on all for which they worked diligently and so they might enjoy a full reward from the Lord (2 John 1:8). Then John declared what we have seen in 2 John 1:9: those who go beyond the “teaching of Christ” do not have God, while those who remain within the “teaching [of Christ]” has both the Father and the Son, and if anyone would come to them and would not bring “this teaching,” they should not be received or even greeted, for those who greet them would share in their evil deeds (2 John 1:10-11). John closed the letter by speaking of how he had other things to say which he would provide in person, and provided greetings from the “children” of the “elect sister,” likely the local church with which John the Elder worked (which we would believe is Ephesus; 2 John 1:12-13).

So who would be these “deceivers” and “antichrists” who would not confess Jesus as having come in the flesh? John maintained a similar concern in 1 John 2:18-27, 4:1-3: some who had previously professed Jesus as the Christ and maintained association with the Christians departed from them by denying Jesus came in the flesh. John’s witness, along with other witness from early Christians, testify regarding the existence of the “docetists.” “Docetist” derives from the Greek verb dokeo, “to seem.” Docetists denied the real substance of Jesus’ humanity: to them, Jesus only “seemed” human, but remained fully divine. Docetists were no doubt heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, which generally held the material realm in low esteem and did not easily countenance the proposition the divine would take on truly and fully human form (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31). Docetism would be related to the various gnostic groups which would develop and expand in the generations after John the Elder; while gnostics were docetists, it remains possible the kind of docetists regarding which John warned had not yet developed or maintained the Gnostic views which would become popular later.

Docetism and gnosticism would flourish not only because they represented a compromise between apostolic witness of Jesus and Hellenistic culture and philosophy, but also because they would present themselves as a “more enlightened” form of the faith in Christ. John, Jude, Paul, and Peter would all warn strongly against such distortions and perversions of “knowledge falsely so called,” and all the more because such people would attempt to remain anchored within Christian communities in order to seduce faithful Christians away from the truth and toward their doctrines (cf. 1 Timothy 6:1-23, 2 Peter 2:1-20, 1 John 2:18-27, 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7-11, Jude 1:3-16).

But what was the big deal? Docetism might have made more sense to a lot of people coming out of the Greco-Roman milieu, but the Apostles rightly perceived how its central tenets completely warped the whole premise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Jesus only “seemed” to be human, and was not fully and truly human, then Jesus was never really born. He never really died. Therefore, He also was not really raised from the dead. Jesus was not fully human in the resurrection, because He was never human at all.

Thus, the docetists were proclaiming a message about a seemingly human but really only divine Jesus, but it was not the good news, because such a Jesus could not redeem humanity, since He never took on humanity. Such a Jesus could not bear witness to the resurrection, because He was never really raised, since He never really died. According to the logic Paul expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, if docetists were right, then Jesus was not raised from the dead, we are all still lost in our sins, and should be of all people most pitied.

To this end, confessing Jesus’ humanity could not be understood as some kind of secondary or tertiary matter; it was an essential aspect of who Jesus was and is and an anchor of the witness of His life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and hope for His imminent return. And since docetists would surreptitiously remain within Christian communities, it proved all the more important to insist upon everyone confessing Jesus as having come in the flesh, and to disassociate and have nothing more to do with anyone who refused to confess Jesus came in the flesh. We can understand why John would call them deceivers, since even if they sincerely believed in a Jesus who only “seemed” to be human, their message was a warped distortion of what the Apostles had proclaimed, and originated in forces trying to deceive people away from the truth of the humanity of Jesus. “Antichrist” as an appellation would sting, yet we can understand why John would call them antichrists: they were opposed to the truth of Jesus’ humanity, and thus were in opposition to the truth in Jesus. Furthermore, the seemingly harsh treatment of the docetists was not suggested out of malevolence or spite but concern for the welfare of believers: it was important for Christians to make strong distinctions between those advocating for the real Jesus versus the docetist Jesus, and all the more important to not give any kind of quarter or support for the docetists whose work was undermining the proclamation of the Gospel in truth. To even greet such a one would be to seek God’s grace and peace upon them; why would any faithful Christian want to seek God’s grace and peace upon those working to undermine confidence in Jesus’ humanity, a core component of the Gospel?

In light of this contextual understanding, what should we make of the “minimalist” and “maximalist” positions?

The contextual understanding certainly recognizes John’s concern about the “teaching of Christ” as the teaching regarding Christ, as the “minimalist” argument would emphasize. No doubt many of those advancing a more “minimalist” argument would nevertheless extend the concern to any of the historic heresies regarding the nature of the Godhead and of Christ: in short, they would argue John’s concern involves adhering to the substance of the ecumenical creeds and no farther.

Yet this “minimalist” position can be challenged on both of its fronts. Does everything which was covered in the ecumenical creeds reach the same level of critical importance in understanding as the humanity of Jesus? If someone, say, has some questions and challenges regarding some of the specific formulations regarding the relationship within the Godhead, or regarding the nature of Christ, have they truly gone beyond the “teaching of Christ”? Are Nestorians and Monophysites all destined for hellfire because they were not sold on the Chalcedonian definition?

And what of Paul’s thundering condemnations in Galatians 5:1-4? The ecumenical creeds do not exactly anathematize Gentile Christians who might submit to circumcision and observe the customs of the Law of Moses, but Paul certainly did. Throughout the Galatian correspondence Paul emphasized over and over again how Jesus had liberated them from their enslavement to the ways of this world, and to turn and submit to the Law of Moses involved returning to a different, but no less ultimately futile, form of enslavement. Paul thus anchored his concerns regarding the Galatian Christians’ temptation to follow the Law of Moses as a departure from the teachings which they had received from Paul in Christ.

John most likely did not think much at all regarding the temptation for Gentile Christians to observe the Law of Moses when he wrote what he did in 2 John 1:9, but we can rightly apply what he said to the Galatian situation. But does this mean the “maximalist” position is justified?

The same Paul who anathematized Gentile Christians who submitted to the Law and those who encouraged them to do so also encouraged Christians to receive one another despite differences in matters of “food and drink,” not involving “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” in Romans 14:1-15:7. Part of the “teaching of Christ,” therefore, involved “receiving one another as Christ received [us]” (Romans 15:7).

There are many matters of disputation regarding which Christians can sincerely hold differing positions yet work together jointly in the faith. We should note well how both John’s concerns with the docetists and Paul’s concerns with the “judaizers” involve core premises of what God has accomplished in Christ. Just as one cannot affirm Jesus’ death and resurrection without affirming Jesus’ humanity, one cannot obtain redemption in Jesus while yoking him or herself to the Law of Moses and its forms of atonement.

Plenty of concerns regarding teachings and doctrines would be elevated to this same level. Those who affirm full preterism and the complete fulfillment of all which Jesus promised regarding His return have thus denied the hope of bodily resurrection, and thus no longer hold to the teaching of Christ. Many of the forms of heretical departures from creedal orthodoxy did deny the full humanity or divinity of Jesus, and thus adhere to a warped and distorted message.

But should all concerns regarding teachings and doctrines be reckoned at this same level? Many disagreements do not involve compromise of the core aspects of “the teaching of Christ” however understood: regarding the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His instruction therein. It would seem a matter like eating meat sacrificed to idols might well have been a point of disagreement among inspired voices in the first century in light of the contrasts among Acts 15:29, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 10:23-33, and Revelation 2:20. Whether a person believes Revelation is primarily about Jerusalem or about Rome does not compromise the core aspects of the teaching of Christ, and each attempts to glorify God in Christ in his instruction and understanding. Christians should try to make sense of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and seek to glorify God in Christ in the conclusions they draw and the applications thereof. Many similar examples could be considered, and in all such circumstances God would not be glorified in Christ if Christians become alienated from one another because of their disagreement regarding such matters.

We can hopefully see why there are challenges with both a “minimalist” and a “maximalist” position on the “teaching of Christ” in 2 John 1:9. We do well to resist any attempt to compromise the teachings regarding Jesus as the Christ and the teachings of Jesus the Christ. We do well to honor what God has made known in Christ through His servant John and give attention to make sure we exemplify and glorify what God accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return in all we preach, teach, and do. May we abide within the teaching of Christ and obtain eternal life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Teaching of Christ appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Mystery and the Paradox

As children, or perhaps now grandchildren, of the Enlightenment, we still prove enamored with reason and systematic thinking. We yearn to make sense of everything and systematically lay out how we imagine it all works.

The God of heaven, who created all things, is greater than we are: as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts, and His ways higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

When the children or grandchildren of the Enlightenment then attempt to approach the thoughts and ways of the Almighty, we are presented with the great challenge: will we seek to impose our frameworks of rationality, reason, and systemization on what God has made known, or will we subject ourselves in faith before the God whose ways are well beyond anything we could begin to imagine?

Our ancestors in the faith felt compelled to systematize everything: to seek to find in the pages of the New Testament one coherent, systematic paradigm or pattern that would govern how churches should function and Christians should live their lives. Any forms of diversity which might be apparent from the text would be suppressed or neglected. Believers were conditioned to insist upon fully resolved and synthesized patterns by which to govern their lives and the work of the churches.

In truth, the New Testament did set forth what the Apostles proclaimed and taught regarding how Christians should live, and churches should function, in the ways which would glorify and faithfully serve the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel was the same Gospel as taught to Jewish and Gentile people; Paul would teach the same principles in every church (1 Corinthians 4:17).

Yet the primary “pattern” regarding which the Apostles taught featured a person: Jesus Himself. The goal was to embody Jesus in all things; to imitate Him fully, and thus share in the life of God in Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:1, Hebrews 2:9-18).

Jesus taught and lived principles which prove hard to systematize and synthesize, because, on the surface, they seem like a contradictory incoherent jumbled mess. “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will find it,” as Jesus declared in Matthew 16:25, is logically self-contradictory. At one point Jesus would say whoever is not with Him is against Him (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); at another point, Jesus declared whoever was not against them was for them (Luke 9:49-50).

Jesus’ life and teaching, therefore, are full of mystery and paradox. Mystery and paradox prove challenging to fit into nice boxes and categories for easy systemization. And so it goes for faith in Christ and those who would participate in the life of God in Christ.

Perhaps no mystery is greater than that of the nature of God Himself. Ever since God made Himself known in Christ, and poured out His Spirit on mankind, people have grappled with and tried to make sense of how God is one and yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. A Trinitarian understanding of the nature of God did not come from some kind of grandiose conspiracy at some church council; it was the position Christians found themselves in when considering how all other options could not make complete sense of all of what God revealed in Christ through the Spirit.

If anything, the development of the various heretical ideas regarding the nature of God proves instructive for us. In truth, all such heresies developed as attempts to completely rationalize and make the nature of God sensible to humanity, whether modalism positing God as one in three “modes,” or Arianism considering the Son and the Spirit as lesser divinities. They “made sense” of who God was by flattening out what they deemed incoherent and inconsistent aspects of what He had made known to mankind. By not fully appreciating the mystery of the divine nature, they made God into something they could understand better, and thus made a god in their own image.

The idea of God as one in three and three in one should remain difficult for us, not as difficulty for the sake of difficulty, but as the almost “natural” result when humans, in their frail and finite nature, are welcomed to see something about the far greater Almighty God.

Edwin Abbot’s Flatland presents for us a good comparison for consideration. In it Abbot posited a two-dimensional world in which a three-dimensional object intrudes. In a two-dimensional space and framework, one cannot coherently discern a three-dimensional object: it will appear as an incoherent jumbled mess of lines everywhere, and all because depth cannot be registered in two dimensions.

And so it goes for us in our human limitation: the ways of the divine will often seem as if incoherent jumbled messes, not because they actually are, but because they cannot be fully rendered in our limited frameworks and understanding. In that way they testify to being the ways of God, as greater than we are, and not derived from human imagination and innovation. Not for nothing did Paul make much of how the Gospel was made known by God in Christ through the Spirit, certainly prophesied but having taken place in a way which no human would have put together as it did (Ephesians 3:1-13). The life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus the Christ would not have been the way any human would have put together that particular story and its effects. Thus it is testified to us as the revelation of the divine mystery, and it remains full of paradoxes.

This proves all the more accurate in terms of Christian doctrine and practice. The history of Christendom is littered with earnest believers who desired to see all things systematized and made coherent, as well as earnest believers so caught up with one aspect of the truth that they pursued it to the exclusion of other aspects and to the detriment of the whole. And for every over-reaction in one direction, another over-reaction in the other direction was sure to follow.

In this way we can understand the arguments about faith and works, divine grace and human effort, eschatological arguments, and a host of other matters. One can pursue the goal of making the faith entirely coherent and systematized, but it will come at the cost of the truth itself, since Jesus, the Truth, manifested a faith of mystery and paradox (John 14:6).

In our own day we see the fruit of over-emphasis and under-emphasis time and time again. As a reaction to so many promoting the doctrines of “faith only” and “once saved, always saved,” it proved easy to strongly emphasize the importance of obedience in the faith and the possibility of apostasy and condemnation. Yet, in strongly emphasizing obedience and the possibility of apostasy, not a few believers have an impoverished understanding of how dependent they are on the grace of God manifest in Christ, and remain quite anxious and apprehensive regarding their salvation.

Does this mean that we should therefore so emphasize the grace of God and the security of the Christian as to neglect and suppress the need to obey God and the possibility of apostasy and condemnation? Such a reaction testifies to the reality of the over-reaction, for the extreme justifies itself by appealing to the other extreme. The Apostle Paul could maintain the tension between divine grace and human initiative, the great work of God in Christ and also our need to conform to His image: Romans 3:1-5:21 was written by the same author in the same letter as Romans 1:5, 6:1-23, and 12:1-2.

We struggle to make sense of it all, but how often do we question why we need so desperately for it all to “make sense”? We should expect divine truth to remain uncomfortable and something which we cannot fully make coherent or systematic according to our paradigms and understanding. Otherwise, it would cease to be divine!

To be a Christian demands we hold truths and practices which seem to be at least somewhat opposed to one another in tension. That will not be the most comfortable space, but it is where we will find God and His ways in Christ.

This will also provide the way forward in our current challenges. Christians should be known as humble, loving, charitable, and kind; the church ought to be a place of acceptance and belonging for those in Christ. Yet God in Christ has established certain standards of thought, feeling, and conduct to fully remain in Christ. Our joint participation in the faith is dependent on our mutual walk in the light of God in Christ (cf. 1 John 1:5-7); if any no longer walk in the light, we are no longer walking in the same ways. The church has always been called to be a confessional family, and there’s inherent tension and challenge in the idea of a confessional family. The confessional family works well and is great when all share the same confession and all treat one another as family. If the confessional family remains quite dogmatic about the confession but does not honor or treat those who share the confession as family, God is not honored or glorified. But the family of God in Christ is the family of God in Christ; anyone who no longer walks in the ways of Jesus has abandoned the basis upon which they share in that family, and so the confessional aspect remains just as important as the aspect of the family.

The church should be an accepting, welcoming family of believers in Christ. The acceptance and belonging are predicated on sharing in Christ; that can seem to be less than truly accepting. If our goal was full coherence, we would fall short. But the goal is not full coherence, or completely logical and rational sense. Our goal is to best embody and reflect Jesus the Christ, and the ways of Jesus the Christ do not make complete sense. They will require us to live in the mystery and the paradoxes of the faith, to hold to competing concepts and themes at the same time.

Thus, to hold well to the faith of God in Christ, we might well sound incoherent. We will have to strongly preach and insist upon the grace of God, welcoming and receiving in the family of God, and similar such things one day, and then on another day strongly preach and insist upon our obedience to God in Christ, the importance of our shared confession of God in Christ in the family of God in Christ, and similar such things.

It might all make sense to us in the “by and by”; perhaps it never can make complete sense, because we will never stop being the creation, and God will always be greater than us, and His ways higher than ours. In all things, however, we do well to faithfully embody and serve Jesus the Christ, and that will require us to embrace the mystery and the paradoxes of the faith grounded and rooted in Him.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Mystery and the Paradox appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Korah’s Rebellion

The Book of Numbers is better understood in terms of its name in Hebrew: Bemidbar, “in the wilderness,” for it described Israel’s preparations to depart from Mount Horeb/Sinai and their wanderings in the wilderness afterward. The events described therein would have taken place sometime around either 1450-1410 or 1250 BCE, depending on one’s view of the Exodus; Moses would have written the original text while in the land of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho.

The Book of Numbers began with great hope for the imminent fulfillment of the rest of what YHWH had promised to the fathers. The people were faithfully counted and organized, and the Tabernacle and its service fully consecrated and dedicated, in Numbers 1:1-10:10.

Yet Israel turned in fear and rebelled against YHWH and His purposes. The people murmured and complained again, and even Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses in Numbers 10:11-12:16. The ultimate rebellion, and its devastating consequences, came about on account of the spies and their bad report of the land of Canaan in Numbers 13:1-14:45. All the Israelites over twenty years old would die in the wilderness save Caleb and Joshua. The people acutely felt the judgment and condemnation of God.

YHWH attempted to reassure and warn the people through a series of commands in Numbers 15:1-41. But it would not be enough for Korah, Dathan, Abiram, On, and their associates.

Korah was a Levite of the family of Kohath; Dathan, Abiram, and On were Reubenites (Numbers 16:1-2). They rose up against Moses and Aaron, accusing them of presumption and arrogance: they argued the community was holy since YHWH was in their midst, and thus who were Aaron and Moses to exalt themselves over the people (Numbers 16:3)?

Moses fell to the ground upon hearing this, and then declared how YHWH would determine who really was His on the next day: Korah and his fellow rebellious Levites should take censers of incense, and YHWH would choose who was holy before Him (Numbers 16:4-7).

Much has been made regarding Korah’s claim regarding the holiness of the people. Many interpreters seem willing to lend it credibility, yet the result of the whole affair should cast great skepticism on the validity of the logic expressed. YHWH is certainly holy; the community has proven far less so. Korah’s complaint seemed to have far less to do with any real concern about the holiness of the community and much more to do about his own standing: Moses would go on to accuse the rebellious Levites of wanting the priesthood for themselves (Numbers 16:8-11).

Moses then attempted to address Dathan and Abiram (On, for unknown reasons, fell out of the narrative), but they would not come to him; they accused Moses of bad faith and leadership, having led them out of a land of “milk and honey” into a wilderness in which to die, and they had not been brought into another land of “milk and honey” (Numbers 16:12-14). Moses was angry and asked YHWH to have no regard for their offerings (Numbers 16:15).

Korah’s interests and Dathan and Abiram’s interests, therefore, seemed quite different. Some have alleged the Numbers author or editor conflated two different rebellions and their accounts, but we have no need to resort to such an explanation. Korah took advantage of the moment to give voice to the frustrations and aspirations of many among the Levites; Dathan and Abiram, as Reubenites, were perhaps frustrated by how their tribe was set aside in terms of leadership and nurtured aspirations of power for themselves. It would not be difficult to imagine how Korah, Dathan, and Abiram might find each other in this circumstance, and to rise up at the same time to provide each other strength and encouragement in doing so.

The next day, Korah and the 250 with him stood at the tent of meeting with their censers of incense, and the “whole community” was assembled with them and against Moses and Aaron; the glory of YHWH appeared before the whole community (Numbers 16:16-19). YHWH first commanded Moses and Aaron to step aside so He might consume the whole community; Moses and Aaron prostrated themselves and begged YHWH to not destroy the whole community on account of the sin of one person (ostensibly Korah; Numbers 16:20-22).

Then YHWH commanded Moses and Aaron to warn the Israelites away from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:23-26). While Dathan, Abiram, and their families stood outside of their tents, Moses made the declaration to all Israel: if Dathan and Abiram and their families died a natural death, YHWH was not with Moses; but if the earth opened up and swallowed them and their families and possessions whole, YHWH was thus testifying how they despised Him and had spoken presumptuously (Numbers 16:27-30). When Moses had finished speaking, the earth opened up and Dathan, Abiram, and their families were all consumed; fire came out from YHWH and consumed the 250 holding the censers (Numbers 16:31-35). The Israelites were afraid they would suffer the same fate (Numbers 16:34)!

YHWH then made what many would consider a surprising command: Eleazar ben Aaron was to take the censers from the condemned men and make hammered sheets from them to cover the altar (Numbers 16:36-38). Even though those who held them had sinned, and suffered for their transgressions, their censers were offered to YHWH and thus had been made holy and should be dedicated to Him. They would also serve as a witness and a warning for future Levites (Numbers 16:39-40).

The community, however, proved bitter and resentful regarding the entire situation: they murmured against Aaron and Moses and accused them of killing YHWH’s people (Numbers 16:41). The glory of YHWH again appeared before the people, and YHWH again was about to consume the whole people (Numbers 16:42-45). Moses commanded Aaron to quickly take his censer and coals from the altar and stand in the assembly of the people and offer atonement for them, since the wrath of YHWH had gone out; Aaron did so, but by the time he was able to stand in the midst of the people, 14,700 died of plague (Numbers 16:46-50).

YHWH then commanded Moses to receive a staff from each of the tribal leaders, and a staff from Aaron to represent the Levites; they were to be placed in the tent of meeting, and the staff which blossomed represented the one YHWH had chosen (Numbers 17:1-5). All was done; the next day, Aaron’s staff had budded, blossomed, and had even produced almonds (Numbers 17:6-9)!

All Israel was able to see all the staffs; YHWH commanded for Aaron’s to be returned to the tent of meeting as a testimony for all who rebelled against Him and His purposes so they would cease murmuring and thus not die (Numbers 17:10-11). The Israelites then lamented how they were all going to die; all who would draw near to the tabernacle of YHWH would die, and they all feared they would die (Numbers 17:12-13).

YHWH would go on to give commands regarding how the Levites and the House of Aaron as priests would bear the burden and iniquity of the tabernacle and how they would stand between YHWH and the people in Numbers 18:1-32, thus in a way answering the question and lament of the people.

Korah’s rebellion and all of its aftereffects directly result from the disastrous incident with the spies and the condemnation of the people in Numbers 13:1-14:45. The message of YHWH through Aaron and Moses was harsh, unrelenting, and for that particular generation, nothing but doom and gloom. The opportunity was then offered for those who wanted to elevate themselves to exploit the people’s anxieties and fears, and Korah, Dathan, and Abiram did that brilliantly.

We rightly perceive how Korah, Dathan, and Abiram acted “with a high hand,” manifesting arrogance, haughtiness, and presumption in asking, “why not us?”. But YHWH had chosen Aaron and Moses for good reasons, and abundantly and publicly testified regarding them before all Israel.

One might think watching the downfall of those who rose up against Aaron and Moses would have taught the people their lesson. But they had invested much in Korah’s presumption, and likely felt similarly to Dathan and Abiram. YHWH was holy, and He was in their midst, so they should be holy. Moses promised this great land, and they now would not receive it.

It would take a lot of death and trauma for the people to fully perceive how the holiness of YHWH proved quite dangerous and to appreciate the work of the Levites and priests to minister before YHWH at the Tabernacle. No doubt many of the Levites learned from Korah’s experience to accept their standing and not strive for the priesthood which was not allocated to them.

Jude spoke of how the Gnosticizing teachers of his day would “perish in Korah’s rebellion” in Jude 1:11, demonstrating how the events of Numbers 16:1-17:13 had become emblematic of insolence and rebellion before God. To this day people will resent and resist the condemnation of God and will turn to anyone who will tell them how they are holy and all will be well with them (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4). Grifters and the mediocre will always ask, “Why not us?” and look for opportunities to advance themselves, even at the expense of the work of God and His Kingdom. Therefore, Korah’s rebellion should not be seen as some distant, remote story about a uniquely rebellious generation of Israelites a long time ago; instead, we should perceive how we might all fall prey to a Korah or a Dathan and Abiram to justify ourselves despite our failures and transgressions. May we resist the Korahs who might arise among the people of God in their haughty presumption, and instead, may we in humility seek to faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Korah’s Rebellion appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel

When you consider the word “Gospel”, what comes to mind?

You hear a lot of talk from Christians about “the Gospel.” Many speak of preaching or defending the Gospel. People are encouraged to participate in gospel meetings; some will call themselves gospel preachers. Many people like to listen to gospel music. The Gospel is manifestly very important in Christianity. But what is meant when people speak of “the Gospel”?

Far too often, “the Gospel” becomes associated with a particular group’s distinctive doctrines or emphases. For some, that might mean firm insistence on the creedal understanding of God and Christ. For others, it might be the “five solas” of Protestantism: sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, sola Scriptura, soli Deo gloria, or grace only, faith only, (salvation in) Christ only, Scripture only, and only to the glory of God. “The Gospel” can even get reduced to doctrinal and practical emphases regarding the nature, organization, and work of the church and the acts within the assemblies.

The word “Gospel” translates the Greek evangelion, or “good news.” “Evangelists” are those who about proclaiming the evangelion, or “good news.” As “news,” the Gospel encodes information, but not merely for entertainment or recreation. The information encoded within the Gospel is expected to catalyze some kind of reaction and response from any and all who receive it, for its message should transform a person’s understanding of themselves and their environment (cf. Matthew 13:1-9). The power within the Gospel is not in the information itself, but in the reality which the information conveys: if that which is proclaimed in the Gospel did not actually reflect reality, and featured events which did not take place, it would not be “good news” at all, but a harmful delusion (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

In the pages of the New Testament, the Gospel is the “good news” of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

For good reason, the chronicles of Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus’ birth and life are just as much a part of the gospel as His death and resurrection: if Jesus were never born, He could not die, nor be raised from the dead; if Jesus did not live blamelessly and without transgression, His death could not have provided atonement (cf. Hebrews 4:15, 5:7-8). Christians are called upon to follow the life and ways of Jesus as their model and example in life (John 14:1-6, Hebrews 2:8-10); Christians must therefore deeply consider the apostolic testimony about Jesus’ life and how He went about doing good and proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom if they would faithfully emulate Him.

Jesus suffered and died on a Roman cross: an immoral travesty, yet God’s predetermined plan (cf. Acts 2:23). Jesus died even though He did nothing to deserve it; in this way He offered Himself for the sins of the world so all who would put their trust in Him could find forgiveness of sin and full reconciliation with God (Romans 5:12-21, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21, Hebrews 7:1-10:25, etc.).

The Gospel does not end with Jesus’ death; if it did, it would not be “good news” at all, because on its own Jesus’ death would have just been a great tragedy (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20). The stunning, world-shattering aspect of the Gospel is Jesus’ resurrection on the third day: God raised Him from the dead, thus vindicating Jesus over all the powers and principalities arrayed against Him, and providing permanent witness regarding His victory over sin and death and the existence of life after death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20-58, Colossians 2:15).

Forty days after He was raised from the dead, Jesus ascended to His Father; as had been prophesied, He received from His Father an eternal dominion which would never end, and on the day of Pentecost the Apostles would begin proclaiming the Lordship, or rule, of God in Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, over Israel (cf. Acts 1:1-2:40). Jesus and the Spirit would make known to the Apostles and fellow Jewish Christians how the Gospel should also be proclaimed to non-Israelites so all might be reconciled to God in Christ (Acts 10:1-11:18). The Apostle Paul in particular would dedicate his life to promoting the Gospel of Jesus, particularly among the nations; according to him, the mystery of the Gospel was its message of reconciliation of Jewish and non-Jewish people, in fact all people, into one body in Jesus (Ephesians 1:1-3:12). Thus, the Gospel insists upon Jesus presently reigning as Lord and Christ over all creation; everyone is thus encouraged to obey Jesus as Lord and seek His ways if they would jointly participate in God’s purposes in Christ and thus share in eternal life in Him (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-23, etc.).

Both Jesus and the Apostles spoke of a day on which the Lord Jesus would return. On that day everyone will be raised from the dead and will be judged by Jesus on the basis of what they have done (Matthew 25:1-46, Acts 17:30-31, Romans 2:5-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). The heavens and earth will be purged by fire and redeemed according to God’s purposes (Romans 8:17-23, 2 Peter 3:1-10). The redeemed in God in Christ will dwell in His presence forever in incorruptible, immortal resurrection bodies, and pain and suffering will be no more (1 Corinthians 15:50-58, Revelation 21:1-22:5). In this way God will make all things new; thus God will become all in all (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).

Thus, from the beginning of God’s witness in Scripture to its end, the Gospel is Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. We can gain much from the stories of the Patriarchs and Israel as giving encouragement and hope, anticipating and prophesying the coming of Jesus the Christ; Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection can be understood as the embodiment of Israel’s story, bringing it to its final, intended conclusion in the reconciliation of the world through the Kingdom of God in Christ. The Apostles and their associates bore witness to Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and in their exhortation, instruction, and even rebuke of Christians, always anchored and centered their messages in what God thus accomplished in Christ. One could ultimately summarize all of the letters of the New Testament as the Apostles working out the implications of what Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return meant for the lives of the early Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

Thus, the Gospel is the good news of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Other aspects of truth remain real and true, but they all in some way or another derive from the truth and validity of the Gospel, and are not the Gospel in and of themselves. Creedal statements may contain aspects of truth, but creedal statements and theologically precise expressions about God in Christ are not themselves the Gospel. The appropriate response to the message of the Gospel is faith in Jesus: but faith itself is not the Gospel, and we are not to have faith in faith as much as faith in Jesus because He lived, died, was raised again, ascended to the Father, was made Lord and Christ, and will return again. The Scriptures truly bear witness to what God has accomplished in Christ, but the Scriptures themselves are not the Gospel: within their pages and their message we learn of what God has accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and will accomplish in His imminent return. Thus the Scriptures make known the Gospel, but are not themselves the Gospel. Matters of what Christians should believe and how Christians should live, how churches should function and be organized, and the assembly and its acts are not the Gospel: Jesus has been made Lord and Christ because of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, and we should observe all He has taught Himself and by means of His Apostles through His Spirit, and do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Colossians 3:17). Thus, we should seek apostolic authority for all we think, feel, say, and do as Christians, but such matters are not themselves the Gospel: their validity is rooted in the Gospel, how Jesus lived, died, was raised again, ascended to the Father, and was given all authority in His Kingdom, and conform to the pattern of His life and teachings.

It is not healthy to conflate all which remains true and valid on account of the truth and validity of the Gospel with the Gospel itself. Far too many think of matters of the faith which are derivative of the Gospel as the Gospel, and thus are distracted from focusing on the Gospel itself. We should approach our beliefs and practices like the Apostles did so many years ago: what are the implications of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return in light of what we are experiencing in our time and place? For every doctrine and practice we consider, we do best if and when we can make sense of them in terms of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. Whatever remains at variance with some aspect of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return thus cannot be true and valid in light of the Gospel, and we as Christians should have nothing to do with such things.

In a world full of deceit, distraction, and false gospels, we do well to always remain centered on the Gospel: Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. We must not allow ourselves to lose focus and consider that which is derivative of the Gospel as the Gospel itself. We must continually remind ourselves in what we teach and preach, how we live, and in our individual and collective practices, of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and always seek to align everything we think, feel, say, and do in terms of what God has accomplished in Jesus. May we firmly and powerful abide within the Gospel of Christ, live according to the authority of God in Christ through the Spirit, and share in eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Bride in Glory

The grand moment has arrived; the end has come. John has seen the end of the whore Babylon in Revelation 17:1-19:10, the end of the beast and the false prophet of Revelation 13:1-16:20 in Revelation 19:11-21, the end of Satan, the one behind it all, in Revelation 20:1-10, and the final judgment of everyone and the condemnation of the ungodly to hell in Revelation 20:11-15. Jesus will now show John a beautiful picture of the wondrous glory awaiting the faithful, foreshadowed in Revelation 11:15-19, 16:17 and consistent with the promises of Romans 8:17-25, 2 Corinthians 2:9-10, and 2 Peter 3:13.

Revelation 21:1-8 set the tone for the rest of the passage. John will see the new heavens and the earth, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, the dwelling place of God and man, a place of life and joy, where all is new, assured by God in Christ for those who will drink freely of the water of life, inheriting the promises, full and unbroken association between God and redeemed mankind, where sin and its practitioners no longer exist.

In Revelation 21:9-27, John is shown the Bride as the holy city, the new Jerusalem, foreshadowed in Revelation 19:7-9. We are invited to see the contrast between the Bride, the new Jerusalem, and the whore Babylon, throughout. The city is described as having wondrous glory, expressed through heavenly light, twelve gates of pearl, a perfect cube of a city of great size, a wall, a city of gold, with twelve foundations of precious jewels (Revelation 21:9-21). The city has no temple in or heavenly lights to shine upon it, for God and the Lamb are its Temple and Light, and the nations and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it; its gates are never closed, since there is no night there, and nothing unclean is in it (Revelation 21:22-27).

In Revelation 22:1-5, the imagery shifts toward paradise, the river of water of life proceeding from the throne of God and the Lamb, and the tree of life on both sides of the river, with the fruit that leads to the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:1-2). There is no curse there, the throne of God is there, and His servants shall see Him face to face (Revelation 22:3-5).

Revelation 22:6-21 serve to conclude the Revelation, assuring the reader/listener of the authority and authenticity of the prophecy, as well as the imminent fulfillment of what has been recorded. The words are not to be sealed up, unlike in the days of Daniel, since the time is near (Revelation 22:10; cf. Daniel 8:26, 10:14, 12:4, 9). The Lord attests to the prophecy; He is coming soon; the book should not at all be distorted by any later scribe on pains of the the plagues of Revelation (Revelation 22:11-19). The letter ends with the expectation of the Lord’s return and a standard conclusion to a letter (Revelation 22:20-21).

Thus the canon of Scripture ends, and it does so in a spectacular fashion. All of the hopes and expectations built up since the beginning of Genesis find their fulfillment in the glorious vision of the Bride of Christ in her glory. The “new heavens and earth,” a promise seen in Isaiah 65:13-25, 66:22-24, come about either from the conflagration (2 Peter 3:1-13) or the transformation (Romans 8:18-25) of the old. God is making all things new: this is the hope of the resurrection and life in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20-58, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:16-18, 5:16-17, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 3:1-4). In this life, the people of God are reckoned as the new Jerusalem, envisioned previously in Isaiah 60:10-20 and Ezekiel 48:31-35, coming down from heaven: the ideal city built by God (Hebrews 11:10, 13-16), not the distortion of man at Babel or the shadow of old Jerusalem (Genesis 11:1-9, 1 Kings 11:36). God now dwells among His people, without a need for a temple, in a perfect cube, as expressed in a shadow in the Holy of Holies and the intended relationship between God and Israel (Leviticus 26:11-12, 1 Kings 6:20). Most of Revelation has featured God’s judgments upon the nations; those that remain now fulfill the desire God had for Israel, that all the kings of the earth and nations would bring their glory into the city of God (Psalm 72:10-11, Isaiah 60:2-5). Finally, and ultimately, the end is as the beginning: as God made man in the Garden of Eden, through which a river ran and in which could be found the tree of life (Genesis 2:8-16, 3:22-24), so now, through the perspective of Ezekiel on the river in Ezekiel 47:1-12, man now can live in the presence of God in Christ forever, face to face, and drink of the water of the river of life and eat the fruit of the tree of life forevermore, images pointing to unbroken association between God in Christ and His redeemed people in the resurrection through the empowerment and enlightenment of the Spirit (cf. John 4:10-11, 7:38-39). The curse of mankind, leading to sin, death, and suffering, is no more, brought to nothing by the Tree of life on which the Savior was crucified and overthrown through His resurrection in power and the resurrection of the believers on that final day (Genesis 3:17, Romans 8:18-25, Galatians 3:13, Hebrews 12:22). The nations find their healing there; we find God’s ultimate purpose in the Garden of Eden, in Abraham, Israel, the prophets, Jesus, and the church, all brought to complete fruition on the day of the glorification of the Bride, the church, the people of God, and their eternal home in the presence of God in the new heavens and the new earth!

Perhaps Revelation 22:6-21 seems incoherent, but it firmly assures us that these things will come to pass. The victory has been won in Christ; sin and death can be defeated through Him; the day is coming when God will redeem the body, release the creation from bondage, destroy death the final enemy, and God will be “all in all” (Romans 8:17-25, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). The final day has not yet come, but it is coming; it is nearer now than it ever has been (Romans 13:11). We have every reason to trust in God’s promises; as we can see, literally everything which God has been working on and toward will find their fulfillment and satisfaction on that great and glorious day. We do well to join with John and Christians throughout the ages in the grand cry: Amen! Come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22:20)!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Bride in Glory appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Infancy Gospels

Where did Joseph and Mary come from? What might Jesus have been like, and what kinds of things might He have done as a child?

These, and many others, represent natural and understandable questions a reader of the Gospel narratives regarding Jesus’ birth and early life in Matthew 1:1-2:23 and Luke 1:1-2:52 might have. And there would be people professing themselves as followers of Jesus as Lord who used their imaginations to come up with stories regarding the circumstances of Mary’s birth, Joseph’s origin, additional details about Jesus’ birth, and incidents involving Jesus as a child. Many of these stories would become extremely popular and were distributed widely in written form. We call them infancy gospels.

Six texts have come down to us from antiquity which are generally considered infancy gospels: they are, in roughly chronological order, The Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Life of John the Baptist, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Syriac or Arabic Infancy Gospel, and the History of Joseph the Carpenter.

The earliest and most influential infancy gospels, by far, are the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Scholars remain generally convinced both were written sometime in the second century CE, with the Protoevangelium of James around 145 and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas at some point in the second half of the second century.

The Protoevangelium of James, also known as the Gospel of James or Infancy Gospel of James, purports to have been written by James the brother of Jesus in the wake of Herod’s death. It can be read here; I discuss it in greater depth here. In it, Mary was born of wealthy but older parents Joachim and Anna, and dedicated as a virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem until given to a widower Joseph as wife. The story would include the details from the narratives in Matthew and Luke but expanded upon them, speaking of the reproaches on Mary and Joseph from the priests in the Temple, and a sotah examination not only of Mary, but bizarrely, of Joseph as well (cf. Numbers 5:11-31). After Jesus’ birth, Mary’s virginity, even after giving birth, was assured by a midwife on site. In this story Herod the Great sent soldiers to kill both Jesus and John the Baptist; a mountain opened up to give shelter to Elizabeth and John, but Herod would later put Zechariah to death, and Simeon of Luke 2:22-38 fame officiated as priest.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a modern name for what had formerly been known as the Gospel of Thomas; the name was changed because it is not the same thing as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas re-discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi Codices. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas can be read here or here. The association between the text and Thomas existed in the medieval era; we cannot be completely confident of its existence beforehand. It is also called the Book of the Childhood of the Savior. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas represents a collection of short stories about various acts of Jesus while He was a child. Some of the most famous stories involve Jesus making clay sparrows which He brought to life; cursing a boy who then died, and later bringing him back to life; the accidental death of a child named Zeno, with claims Jesus knocked him off a roof, featuring Jesus bringing Zeno back to life, with Zeno then exonerating Jesus; healing James of a viper bite; and assisting His father by miraculously expanding a piece of wood to finish some furniture. On three occasions a teacher comes around and presumes he can teach the boy Jesus something, and the teachers are always humiliated and provide significant warnings about the Child.

The Life of John the Baptist was not claimed as written by an apostle or their associates but by Serapion of Thmuis around 390 CE; it can be read here. In truth, the Life of John the Baptist is not primarily an infancy gospel; as advertised, it represents the collection of the stories about John’s birth, life, and death as told in the Gospel narratives, the Protoevangelium of James, some additional church traditions, and concluded with the story of how that which was believed to be the body of John the Baptist was taken from Sebaste and brought to Alexandria in Egypt in the fourth century. The Life of John the Baptist is included among the infancy gospels since it would expand upon the stories leading up to Jesus’ birth, but also because of the story preserved in Life of John the Baptist 7, claiming Elizabeth died when John was seven and a half, and Jesus, at seven, came with Mary to John on a cloud, told His mother and Salome to prepare Elizabeth’s body for burial, for which Gabriel and Michael dug a grave, and then gave instruction to John so he might live and remain in the wilderness.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, called the Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood of the Savior in antiquity, purported to have been translated by Jerome from an original Hebrew document written by Matthew to tell stories beyond what he wrote in his Gospel; it can be read here. Such “attestation” was added to the text two hundred years after its likely origins in Merovingian France in the seventh century. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew can be best understood as a compilation of and slight expansion on the stories told in Matthew and Luke as well as the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Some notable additions include an immaculate conception of Mary by Anna (Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 3) and frequent demonstrations of how animals would subject themselves before Jesus as a baby and a child, including the first claim a donkey and an ox were in the stable where Jesus lay in the manger (Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 14, depending on Isaiah 1:3). The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, at variance with other portrayals of the story, declared the Magi visited Jesus in His third year of life (Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 16).

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew would also expand upon Jesus’ time in Egypt and suggested many stories of miraculous events surrounding Him throughout that time. Such would become a major aspect of the Syriac or Arabic Infancy Gospel; it can be read here. It would seem the work derived from the Syriac History of the Virgin, perhaps written in the fifth or sixth century, but has become better known to us as the Arabic Infancy Gospel, likely a translation of the Syriac into Arabic, but possibly an Arabic composition using the Syriac story as a source. Influence from the Gospel accounts and the Protoevangelium of James can be identified in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, but the story quickly covers Jesus’ birth in order to more thoroughly focus on stories about Jesus’ childhood in Egypt and Judea. Even if its coverage of Jesus’ birth was short, the Arabic Infancy Gospel notably has Jesus confess Himself as the Logos and Son of God to Mary from the cradle (Arabic Infancy Gospel 1), and spoke of the wise men as traveling on account of a prophecy from Zoroaster (Arabic Infancy Gospel 7). Yet the novelty within the Arabic Infancy Gospel primarily remains in all of the stories it would tell of miracles in Egypt and around Bethlehem: while it incorporated a good number of the stories presented in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Arabic Infancy Gospel would tell many unique stories of Mary facilitating healing and miracles through her Child.

Around the same time, and most likely from Egypt, came the History of Joseph the Carpenter; it can be read here. It purported to be an apostolic recollection of instruction by Jesus from the Mount of Olives regarding the life, and especially the death, of His stepfather Joseph. The History of Joseph the Carpenter displays great dependence on the Protoevangelium of James for its narrative of Jesus’ birth. The author was quite insistent on Joseph as having been a widower, with sons Judas, Justus, James, and Simon and daughters Assia and Lydia having been born to a previous wife. The text claimed Joseph lived to 111, with a good portion of the text telling a story about Joseph’s final words and how Jesus facilitated his passage and promised his body would remain uncorrupted.

What, then, should we make of these six infancy gospels? They all are reckoned among the New Testament Apocrypha: by common confession, those claiming to have been written by James the Lord’s brother or Thomas remain pseudepigraphal, or written by someone later who ascribed their stories to an ancient authority. At no point have there been credible, serious claims that any of these infancy gospels are inspired.

All six infancy gospels represent forms of midrash, creative expansions on Biblical stories by later generations. As with most midrashim, we have no basis or ground upon which to believe or suggest these stories derived from actual eyewitness experiences of Joachim, Anna, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, or anyone else.

As we have seen, most of the infancy gospels prove dependent on the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The second century dating of these texts demonstrates how relatively quickly stories about Jesus’ birth and early life, and the lives of His parents, arose and were circulated. But even these betray more Greco-Roman than Hebrew origin: the idea virgins lived in the Temple has no basis or ground in any of the literature which has survived about the services of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, but very much sounds like how Vestal Virgins served Vesta in Rome. Perhaps Mary’s parents really were named Joachim and Anna; but it would be hard to imagine them as fantastically wealthy since Joseph and Mary dedicated Jesus in the Temple with a pair of doves, the secondary option given for the poor in Leviticus 12:6-8 (Luke 2:22-24). Furthermore, stories of Joseph and Mary having fame and reputation in Jerusalem at the Temple very much stand at variance with their more humble and anonymous origins as imagined in Luke 1:36-2:38. While the mischief and impatience of Jesus as a child as portrayed in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas bear witness to the author’s experience of parenting small children, it proves challenging to reconcile with the portrayal of Jesus as obedient and growing in wisdom and stature in Luke 2:51-52; furthermore, the Gospel accounts do not suggest Jesus performed miracles or signs before He was baptized by John.

Some have claimed a more Gnostic origin for the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, probably based on some of the things the author has Jesus say and teach. Nevertheless, nothing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is inherently Gnostic, and many of its stories would seem to work against the Gnostic portrayal of Jesus. Yet even in antiquity, prominent Christians deemed it heretical.

The challenges which attend to the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are only compounded with the Life of John the Baptist, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and the History of Joseph the Carpenter. These texts all date far later and manifest clear dependence on the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, including all their difficulties.

Whatever did not prove dependent on earlier sources represent imagined miraculous experiences framed in terms of later devotional and theological premises. And this leads us to considering why these infancy gospels exist.

To some degree these stories come out of a natural desire to “fill in the gaps” of the stories related in the Gospels. As many Jewish people told stories expanding on Biblical characters in the Hebrew Bible, with many of those stories preserved as the midrashim for those various Biblical books, so many early Christians did something similar, especially in terms of Jesus’ early years and regarding the lives of the Apostles. Much of the New Testament Apocrypha represents these kinds of stories. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas would represent this trend most purely.

But the storytellers were not merely motivated by simple curiosity. A good number of these stories, at least in part, were designed to advance and/or reinforce the developing hagiography and veneration, particularly of Mary, over the first few centuries of the Christian faith. As the doctrines of original sin and the practice of infant baptism advanced and were fused together, it became all the more important to shield Jesus from them; thus not only was Jesus portrayed as immaculately conceived, but also Mary herself, as we can see in the adaptations of the Protoevangelium of James seen in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Before long Mary’s perpetual virginity would become a dogma among many early Christians, standing at variance with the portrayal of Joseph keeping Mary a virgin “until” she gave birth to Jesus in Matthew 1:25, and James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as Jesus’ brothers in Matthew 12:46-48, 13:55-56. Since the Gospels no longer mention Joseph once Jesus reaches maturity, and his previous death is assumed by the need for John to take care of Mary after Jesus’ death in John 19:25-27, an alternative story could be put together. And, conveniently, these infancy gospels would tell of a much older widower Joseph marrying the virgin Mary more as a caretaker than anything else, and never having relations with her, and his sons from a former marriage would become Jesus’ “brothers.” We can also see Mary taking on greater prominence in the infancy gospels over time, especially manifest in the Arabic Infancy Gospel.

These infancy gospels have done their work well. Even though they are fully confessed as apocryphal writings and as midrashim, not inspired and not derived from truly apostolic witness, many of their details have become understood as part of the story of Jesus’ birth and early life. Many make much of Joachim and Anna as the parents of Mary based on the Protoevangelium of James. Muhammad was influenced by many of these stories about Mary and Jesus, most likely through the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and they are found in the pages of the Qu’ran. In every generation some will try to pass off stories from the infancy gospels as the “truth” which “the Church” worked to “suppress” and “keep out of the Bible,” and some will naively believe them.

In the end, the infancy gospels tell you a lot more about the faith and devotion of many early Christians from the second century onward than anything about the historical, or even canonical, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. We can appreciate the infancy gospels as imaginative ways in which early Christians told themselves stories about how Joseph, Mary, and Jesus came to be. At the same time, there is much about the story told by Matthew and Luke which get lost in the way the infancy gospels attempt to make much of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus: it is harder to see their humility, poverty, and relative anonymity in these infancy gospels. If anything, these infancy gospels better display the power of the original Gospel accounts in contrast. May we affirm and uphold the story of Jesus’ birth and parentage as testified by Matthew and Luke, and find eternal life in God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Infancy Gospels (accessed 2024/12/23).

The post Infancy Gospels appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Reassurance and Warning by Commandment

The Book of Numbers is better understood in terms of its name in Hebrew: Bemidbar, “in the wilderness,” for it described Israel’s preparations to depart from Mount Horeb/Sinai and their wanderings in the wilderness afterward. The events described therein would have taken place sometime around either 1450-1410 or 1250 BCE, depending on one’s view of the Exodus; Moses would have written the original text while in the land of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho.

The Book of Numbers began with great hope for the imminent fulfillment of the rest of what YHWH had promised to the fathers. The people were faithfully counted and organized, and the Tabernacle and its service fully consecrated and dedicated, in Numbers 1:1-10:10.

Yet Israel turned in fear and rebelled against YHWH and His purposes. The people murmured and complained again, and even Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses in Numbers 10:11-12:16. Yet the ultimate rebellion, and its devastating consequences, came about on account of the spies and their bad report of the land of Canaan in Numbers 13:1-14:45. All the Israelites over twenty years old would die in the wilderness save Caleb and Joshua. The people acutely felt the judgment and condemnation of God.

In the immediate wake of these devastating and transformative events YHWH issued more commands to Israel through Moses in Numbers 15:1-41.

In Numbers 15:1-21, YHWH gave commandments to Moses for Israel about the sacrifices the Israelites should offer before YHWH when they live in the land of Israel. The legislation seems to parallel previous similar legislation in Leviticus 7:1-34 and related passages. Some detail changes can be perceived in Numbers 15:1-16, perhaps on account of modifications in the situation of Israel and expectations moving forward. Of significance is YHWH’s affirmation of the incorporation of the resident alien: the same laws about sacrifices exist for resident aliens as well as native born Israelites, and resident aliens who might want to enthusiastically offer sacrifices before YHWH should not be hindered from doing so (Numbers 15:13-16).

YHWH reiterated commandments and protocols related to sacrifices for unintentional sins by individuals in Numbers 15:22-29. Similar legislation was given in Leviticus 4:1-35. Much of the focus in Leviticus 4:1-35, however, was on unintentional sin by the community, while the focus in Numbers 15:22-31 involved the unintentional sin of individual(s) and how they might affect the standing of the community. YHWH again reiterated how the same law would be for the resident alien as well as the native-born Israelite (Numbers 15:29).

While sacrifice was possible for unintentional sin, YHWH wanted to make it clear to Moses and the Israelites no such forgiveness was possible for sins done “with a high hand” in Numbers 15:30-31: for such flagrant rebellion, such a one must be cut off from among the people of God. Some might want to extend this kind of transgression to involve any and all kinds of “intentional” sins, but we do well to understand the parallel use of the phrase “with a high hand” in Exodus 14:8 and Numbers 33:3. In those two passages Israel was said to have departed “with a high hand” away from Egypt and Pharaoh: they did so with complete disregard for the “power” of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Therefore, to sin “with a high hand” would involve complete disregard of YHWH and His power: we would not be wrong to see Jesus’ warnings about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12:22-32 as an appropriate parallel.

Numbers 15:32-36 related an experience of Israel in the wilderness: a man was gathering sticks on the Sabbath. He was brought before Aaron and Moses, who then inquired of YHWH regarding what to do about the situation, because it was felt insufficient revelation had been given to make a confident determination. YHWH told them to put him to death by stoning outside the camp. Israel then did so as God had commanded.

While we could reasonably understand Numbers 15:1-21, 22-29, 37-41 as a series of commandments given by YHWH to Moses in the immediate wake of Israel’s rebellion in Numbers 13:1-14:45, it would seem Numbers 15:32-36 was introduced into this context. It is possible the event took place around the same time, but how the story was framed would make it seem it either happened at some point earlier, or perhaps even far later. We do best to understand its placement as a demonstration of what sinning “with a high hand” might look like from Numbers 15:30-31.

Why did Aaron and Moses feel they did not have sufficient revelation to determine the matter themselves? The man had clearly transgressed by doing the work of gathering sticks on the Sabbath. It becomes a more “high handed” sin, according to most interpreters, on account of the presumption the man was doing so in order to build a fire. In so doing he did not truly revere YHWH or trust in Him, but showed contempt toward YHWH and His commandments. We also do well to note how Israel here faithfully maintained the command to stone the man, a noticeable break from the patterns of persistent rebellion found in Numbers 10:11-14:45, hearkening back instead to the faithfulness found in Numbers 1:1-10:10.

In Numbers 15:37-41 YHWH gave commandment to Israel through Moses regarding tassels on garments: the Israelites should make tassels of blue thread on the fringes of their garments. These tassels were designed to be a continual reminder of the commandments of YHWH so the Israelites would not follow after their own heart and eyes and prove unfaithful. Such was expected to be a perpetual statute in Israel; and so it is modern Jewish people often have tassels on their garments.

We have found examples of tassels on garments in the ancient Near Eastern world; the idea of tassels on garments, therefore, was not a uniquely Israelite convention. But the color and the purpose of the tassel was to be paramount for Israel, and we can gain much from this instruction. We all know we should continually remember God, His faithfulness, and His commandments, and to always seek to obey Him. Nevertheless, we are often tempted in the business of our lives and passions of life to not maintain direct consciousness of God and His purposes. A continual visual reminder of God and His purposes would easily help a believer bring God back to his or her conscious memory. Christians have not been commanded to maintain tassels or anything of that sort; nevertheless, we do well to consider how we can best keep God in our conscious memory so we might always remain faithful to Him.

We might wonder why these commandments were placed at this point in time in Numbers 15:1-41. In light of the spies and the rebellion in Numbers 13:1-14:45, and the imminent rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and its effects in Numbers 16:1-17:13, the presence of commands in Numbers 15:1-41 seems jarring and a bit anticlimactic. But when we consider the substance of the commands, we can perceive God’s wisdom in providing them at this moment.

YHWH has sharply judged and condemned the Israelites in the wilderness, and for good and understandable reasons. But we could understand why the Israelites would thus fall into despair. Was YHWH abandoning them fully?

And so right after issuing the condemnation, YHWH gave commandments about what ostensibly younger generations of Israelites should offer to YHWH when they live in the land of Canaan in Numbers 15:1-21. In this way YHWH assured Israel: there would be Israelites who would inhabit Canaan. The promises would be fulfilled, even if not for the present generation.

In a similar way we can understand a lot of the legislation in terms of what Israel has most recently experienced. The emphasis on the inclusion of the resident alien in Numbers 15:13-15, 29, might well be in response to the “mixed multitude” who craved the meat at Kibroth-hattaavah in Numbers 11:4-35: that terminology presumes the foreigners who had come out of Egypt with the Israelites were the primary complainants, and we could easily imagine how some Israelites by ancestry might have grown resentful of them because of its consequences. Thus YHWH would remind Israel to treat resident aliens like native sons and not make such distinctions. Comparison and contrast between “unintentional” sins, and how they can be forgiven, versus sins “with a high hand” and how impossible they are to forgive might be an object lesson for Israel considering all they had just experienced, and presages what would happen to Dathan and his ilk. Finally, what Israel had just experienced reinforced the need for the tassels: Israel needed some kind of physical, immediate reminder of YHWH and His commands lest they again and again turn aside from His commandments and incur His disfavor.

In this way, therefore, God provided Israel both reassurance and warning through the commandments given in Numbers 15:1-41. The people of Israel would suffer the due penalty for their transgressions, but God was not entirely cutting them off. His promises would be fulfilled; Israelites would take over the land of Canaan in the next generation. Yet within these commands were potent warnings: do not sin with a high hand against God, or there will be no hope for you. Always remember who God is and what He has commanded lest you again fall short as before with the spies.

The narrative after Numbers 15:41 would bear all of these things out. Israel would indeed conquer the land in the next generation, and offerings would be made before YHWH according to His commandment. Unfortunately, Israel would continue to rebel against YHWH, both in the wilderness and after they entered the land of Canaan, and they would continually experience the judgments of God. We do well to learn from their examples and faithfully serve God in Christ so we might share in life in Him and avoid condemnation!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Reassurance and Warning by Commandment appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Way to the Father’s House

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

The moment at which the Son of Man would be glorified, and God in Him, had arrived (John 13:31-32): Judas had just departed to betray Jesus; soon Jesus would be arrested, tried, abused, executed, but raised from the dead on the third day. Jesus well understood these things, but His disciples did not. Everything Jesus would say and do in John 13:1-17:26 was designed to prepare His disciples for these events and what would come afterward.

To this end, in John 13:1-17, Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, and explained to them how they should follow His example and humbly serve one another. Jesus spoke of His imminent betrayal and sent Judas Iscariot out in John 13:18-30. Jesus, focusing on the eleven remaining disciples, would then begin a discourse in John 13:31 which would conclude with His “High Priestly Prayer” in John 17:1-26. He began this discourse by emphasizing how God would be glorified in the Son of Man, and it was for them to love one another as He had loved them (John 13:31-35).

Jesus had also told His disciples they could not go where He was going just yet, and such caused consternation among them (John 13:33, 36-38). In John 14:1-31, Jesus would try to provide comfort and assurance to His disciples regarding His departure and its implications.

Jesus’ discourse in John 14:1-31 has often been distorted and misconstrued on account of decontextualized applications and an unhealthy focus on the imagery to the neglect of its meaning. Jesus will speak of going away, coming back, being the Way, etc., and many have understood these statements in spatial ways. While Jesus would indeed physically depart from the earth and ascend to the Father in heaven, we seriously misunderstand Jesus’ meaning and intention if we understand Him as speaking about bridging spatial distance. Throughout John 14:1-31 Jesus’ focus was much more on relational distance. At this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus has not yet died or been raised from the dead; the work of reconciliation which Jesus would accomplish in His death and resurrection remain in the future. While Jesus was also preparing His disciples for the period after His death and resurrection, He remained primarily focused on reassuring them in the face of what He was about to experience. We may brusquely dismiss concern about what the disciples might do between His arrest and His resurrection by wondering what really could happen over that roughly forty-eight-hour period. But you can get yourself in a lot of trouble in forty-eight hours, and so assuredly could the disciples. Jesus’ concerns remained well placed.

There is no contextual transition or shift from John 13:36-38 to John 14:1-31. Jesus could tell His disciples were troubled by His imminent departure. So He spoke to encourage them: believe in the Father and Jesus; there are many dwelling places in the Father’s house, and Jesus was going to prepare a place for the disciples, so they could be where He was, and they would know the way to get there (John 14:1-4).

When we read John 14:1-4 we can understand why many would understand Jesus’ words according to spatial distance. So much has been made of what the King James Version translated as “mansions” in John 14:2: the Greek word monai is well translated as “rooms” or “dwelling places,” and ironically such is what “mansions” originally meant in English (derived from Latin manere, “to remain”). Christians read about “mansions” in John 14:2 and began imagining them as fancy houses in heaven; they then began describing fancy houses on earth as “mansions,” and so people today now associate “mansions” with fancy houses, and read that back into what Jesus said in John 14:2.

Yet, as Jesus will continually demonstrate as the discourse continues, the distance bridged is not spatial as much as relational. To this day we associate “household” both with a dwelling place and as joint participation within a family structure, and such is what Jesus intended for us to understand here. Yes, Jesus would physically suffer, die, be raised from the dead, and would ascend to the Father; in so doing, He would allow us to be reconciled to God so we might be able to be adopted as sons and daughters of God (cf. Romans 8:1-17). Therefore, in this way, Jesus spoke of what He was about to do and explained what it meant in terms of the relationship the disciples could have with God.

Jesus affirmed the disciples knew the way He was going in John 14:4, but Thomas was not nearly as sure: they did not know where He was going, so how could they know the way to where He was going (John 14:5)? Jesus’ response has become infamous: He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; there is no other way to the Father than through Jesus (John 14:6). To know and see Jesus is to know and have seen the Father (John 14:7).

While Thomas, no doubt, continued to think spatially, Jesus redirected them to think relationally. We should not underemphasize how Jesus is the Truth and the Life; nevertheless, in context, the emphasis is rightly placed on how Jesus is the Way. The faith in Christ would even be known as The Way according to Acts 24:14, and for good reason: the faith was embodied in Jesus, and if we would glorify and honor God in Christ, we must follow Him in His ways. Then as now we closely associate living with a journey, and so we frequently use journeying metaphors to understand how we live. The Hebrews author would speak of Jesus as the pioneer of the faith, blazing the trail all of us should follow after Him (cf. Hebrews 2:10). If we want to find room in the Father’s house, we can only get there by following the Way; thus, if we want to share in the life of God, we can only do so through submitting to and following Jesus in all He has told us to think, feel, say, and do.

The claim Jesus is the only way to God the Father has struck many in the world as arrogant and presumptuous. If it were said by anyone else, such a response would be understandable and appropriate. But if Jesus is who He says He is, the statement is inescapably true. Jesus has claimed to be God in the flesh; if we have seen Jesus, we have come to understand the essential characteristics and attributes of God. Any other characteristics and attributes would not truly be of God or Jesus, and therefore could not lead you to God. Thus, where other forms of philosophical, religious, or spiritual forms of instruction or understanding remain consistent with what God has made known in Christ, we can find something praiseworthy in them. Yet wherever any other philosophical, religious, or spiritual forms of instruction or understanding are inconsistent with what God has made known in Christ, such cannot well and accurately represent reality or a means of understanding God in truth.

Philip did not quite understand: he asked Jesus to show them the Father, and they would be content (John 14:8). Jesus responded, perhaps with some frustration (and understandably so), wondering if he had been with Jesus for so long without really understanding Him: how could he ask to see the Father when those who have seen Jesus have seen the Father (John 14:9)? Did he not believe the Father was in Jesus as Jesus was in the Father, and He was doing the Father’s works (John 14:10)? Even if he did not believe that, Philip should at least believe in the works Jesus had done (John 14:11).

Jesus then took the opportunity to continue reassuring and encouraging His disciples: if they believed, they would do even greater miraculous things than what Jesus had done, since He was going to the Father (John 14:12). He assured them He would do whatever they asked the Father in His name (John 14:13-14). If they loved Jesus, they would do His commandments, and Jesus would ask the Father to send them the Parakletos, the “Paraclete,” the Advocate or Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who would reside with the disciples (John 14:15-17). In this way Jesus would not abandon His disciples as orphans: He would come to them, and they would then know Jesus was in the Father, and they were in Jesus and Jesus was in them (John 14:18-20). Jesus re-affirmed and re-emphasized how those who have and obey His commandments loves Jesus, and Jesus and the Father will love them, and Jesus will come to them (John 14:21).

Jesus thus promised the coming of the Holy Spirit to His disciples as a form of comfort, assurance, and as an advocate. Even though Jesus would physically remain in heaven after His ascension, the Spirit would come and dwell within and among the disciples, and by means of the Spirit God in Christ would abide and remain with the disciples if they persevered in His commandments.

Judas – not Iscariot, the other Judas – then asked Jesus an understandable follow-up question: how would Jesus reveal Himself to the disciples but not the world (John 14:22)? Jesus did not seem flustered by this question, but His response may not have been what anyone was expecting: He reaffirmed how those who love Jesus will obey His word, the Father will love them, and the Father and Son will “take up residence” with them, but those who do not love Jesus will not obey His words, which really belong to the Father (John 14:23-24).

The word for “residence” in John 14:23 is Greek mone, the same word as used for “dwelling places” in John 14:2, and the only times the word is used in the Greek New Testament. This association confirms how Jesus has not been speaking of spatial matters, but relational. Jesus suffered and died so we might be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to God. Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended to the Father to be glorified and honored with all authority and power in His Kingdom. God would then send the promised Holy Spirit to dwell in and among the disciples and all those who would believe in Jesus and obey Him through their proclamation. By means of the Spirit, God would dwell in and among His people in Christ.

The Greeks had a word to describe mutual interpenetration without loss of distinctive identity: perichoresis. God maintains perichoretic relational unity within Himself: such is how He can be the One in Three, and Three in One, so perfectly One we speak of God as a singularity, yet manifest in three Persons (cf. John 17:20-23, etc.). Thus Jesus has spoken of how the Father is “in” Him and He is “in” the Father in John 14:20; and through what He has accomplished and by means of His Spirit, God in Christ would maintain perichoretic relational unity with us as believers in Him.

Such is why Jesus again re-assured the disciples: He had taught them all of these things while with them, but the Advocate would come and teach them all things and remind them of all the things Jesus had taught them (John 14:25-26). He would leave them with a peace which was unlike peace in the world, and so they should not lose heart (John 14:27). They really should be glad Jesus was going to be with the Father, for the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Jesus had thus spoken in advance so they might believe when it would take place (John 14:29). Before long the “ruler of this world,” most likely Satan, would be coming; he really had no power over Jesus, since Jesus was doing what the Father had commanded Him (John 14:30-31).

While much of what Jesus said to the eleven disciples that night would have direct applications to believers afterward, John 14:26 was a promise more specifically to the eleven from which we benefit as a result. None of us were alive to see and hear Jesus; therefore, the Spirit cannot bring to our remembrance what Jesus taught us as He could, and did, for the eleven disciples. Yet the promise can assure us what we hear from the apostolic testimony remains accurate and faithful: on their own, people are liable to forget a lot of what they have been taught, but we can be assured the Spirit brought to the remembrance of the Apostles what Jesus had taught them, and therefore their testimony which we have received in Scripture remains faithful.

Jesus told His disciples to get up and go from where they were in John 14:31. In John 18:1, John the Evangelist suggested Jesus went out across the Kidron after He had spoken all of those things. Perhaps Jesus continued speaking while they made preparation to walk; perhaps the discourse continued while they walked until they reached the Kidron. Regardless, John 14:31 represents only a mild disruption, for Jesus would continue according to the same themes in John 15:1 and following.

Jesus intended to comfort and re-assure His eleven disciples in John 14:1-31, and as those who believe in their witness, we can draw great comfort and assurance from His message as well. Jesus suffered, died, was raised again in power, ascended to the Father, was made Lord and Christ and given an eternal Kingdom, and now reigns from heaven. Yet Jesus has not abandoned us as orphans: He has reconciled us to God so we might share in His life and truth forever. He has given us of His Spirit so we might share in relational unity with God as God shares in relational unity within Himself. Yet we can only share in such hope and promise if we abide in Jesus as the Way and love Him and do His commandments. May we find eternal life in the house of God by means of Jesus, take comfort in the Advocate, and share in God’s relational unity now and forevermore in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Way to the Father’s House appeared first on de Verbo vitae.