Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 7

Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah, and Hazeroth

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.

In Numbers 1:1-10:10, the Israelites faithfully followed all YHWH commanded in organizing the people and consecrating the Tabernacle and the Levites. Everything was thus prepared for YHWH to lead Israel directly into Canaan and fulfill all He had promised to their fathers.

Ultimately, Israel would enter Canaan, and YHWH would fulfill all He had promised to their fathers. Yet, as the narrative would unfold in Numbers 10:11-25:18, it would not happen for the generation which had seen the mighty works of YHWH in Egypt and the wilderness. All but Caleb and Joshua would fall dead in the wilderness because of their persistent rebellion. The climax of this rebellion would come in Numbers 13:1-14:45 with the spies, their report, and Israel’s response; nevertheless, as the events described in Numbers 10:11-12:16 will make manifest, not all was well in Israel beforehand.

Israel set off from Horeb/Sinai toward the Wilderness of Paran, following the cloud of the Presence and in appropriate formation (Numbers 10:12-28). Curiously, Moses then asked Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, his father-in-law, to come with him and the Israelites; when Hobab protested, Moses insisted, wanting to make sure he and Israel had access to his understanding of the wilderness and places to camp (Numbers 10:29-32). Details about Hobab prove challenging: as Reuel’s son, Hobab would be Moses’ brother-in-law, ostensibly brother of Zipporah, and a Midianite; in Judges 1:16, 4:11, Hobab was identified as Moses’ father-in-law and as a Kenite. In Exodus 18:1-27, Moses’ father-in-law was identified as Jethro, and as departing for his home after speaking with Moses. While Moses’ father-in-law was also named Jethro in Exodus 3:1, he was named as Reuel in Exodus 2:15-22. Beyond all this, soon after Aaron and Miriam will speak against Moses on account of the Kushite woman he had married in Numbers 12:1, leading us to wonder what has happened to Zipporah. We can make some sense of all of this by suggesting Jethro and Reuel are alternative names for the same person, Hobab was his son and we have a form of textual corruption in Judges 1:16, and Kenites might be a subset of Midianites; perhaps Moses has taken a second Kushite wife, or perhaps Zipporah passed away previously.

We can make decent sense of the text in context as a way of communicating how Moses welcomed some non-Israelites into the Israelite coalition; as Judges 1:6, 4:11 attest, some of the Kenites at least took up Moses’ offer and shared in the blessings of the land of Israel. Nevertheless, Moses’ specific reason for wanting Hobab around betrays, at some level, some lack of complete confidence in YHWH: was not YHWH directing Israel where to go and where to camp, as demonstrated in Numbers 9:15-23? Our most charitable understanding of Moses would suggest he was not yet fully aware of how YHWH would lead them further into the wilderness, and thus it made sense in his mind to want Hobab around to be a guide. Yet we may not be wise in thus giving Moses the benefit of the doubt in light of all which will soon happen. In this way even Moses himself was most likely not displaying complete confidence in YHWH regarding all which Israel was about to experience.

We are not told whether Hobab took up Moses’ offer; perhaps the Judges testimony should suggest at least some members of his family went with Israel. The narrative would continue: YHWH led Israel out three days into the wilderness, and Moses related what he would say when the Ark of the Covenant would begin traveling, and what he would say when it came to rest (Numbers 10:33-36). This place would be known as Taberah, burning, because fire came out from YHWH and burned parts of the camp because the people had begun complaining (Numbers 11:1-3).

For at least the period described in Numbers 1:1-10:11, Israel had proven fully faithful to YHWH; almost as soon as they depart from Horeb/Sinai, their rebellious tendencies again become manifest. At this location or somewhere nearby, the people of Israel complain about the food: they craved meat above and beyond the daily manna which had been sustaining them for some time (Numbers 11:4, 6-9). They spoke of all the bounty of Egypt; while all the foods they mention were plentiful in Egypt, we cannot imagine they would have been welcomed to share in it as slaves (Numbers 11:5).

Upon hearing these complaints, YHWH’s anger was kindled, but so also was Moses’ (Numbers 11:10). Moses no longer advocated for the people; instead, Moses unloaded on YHWH: he had not created this people; he had no idea how he could provide meat for all the people; he would rather die than to keep leading Israel in this condition (Numbers 11:11-15).

YHWH would take care of Moses and Israel in that order. He first commanded Moses to collect seventy of the elders of Israel to place part of His Spirit on them to help him bear the burden of the people, very much reminiscent of and duplicating Jethro’s advice in Exodus 18:1-27 (Numbers 11:16-17). Israel was to prepare itself to get stuffed with meat to the point of being sick of it on account of their grumbling (Numbers 11:18-20). Moses cast doubt on YHWH’s plan: how could YHWH provide meat for so many hundreds of thousands of people (Numbers 11:21-22)? YHWH slapped back: was His hand shortened (Numbers 11:23)?

Moses did what was commanded: he brought seventy elders to himself and prepared the people (Numbers 11:24). The Spirit of YHWH came upon the elders, and they prophesied once (Numbers 11:25). Yet two men who remained in the camp, Eldad and Medad, also had the Spirit of YHWH come upon them, and they prophesied in the camp (Numbers 11:26). Moses was told of it; we are introduced to Joshua ben Nun, Moses’ servant, who told Moses to stop Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:27). Moses asked if Joshua were jealous for him; Moses would rather YHWH’s Spirit come upon all Israelites, so all might prophesy (Numbers 11:29-30). Much speculation attends to the significance and substance of Eldad and Medad: they prophesied within the camp, thus among the people; many rabbinic sources suggested Eldad and Medad were prophesying about how Moses would not lead Israel into Canaan, which would go a long way to explain why Joshua felt they should be stopped. But we cannot know for certain what Eldad and Medad were prophesying, or even whether the substance of their prophecy was related to Moses and Joshua. But we can see how Moses’ aspirations would be fulfilled in what God would accomplish in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit given to all who believe and obey (Acts 2:38-39, 5:32).

That night a wind came up and brought innumerable quail from the sea, likely from the Gulf of Aqaba, and with easy access for the Israelites; they each gathered no less than two thousand liters’ worth of quail (Numbers 11:31-32). A lot of birds migrate through that particular corridor, and it would not be unimaginable for a huge flock to get caught up in a wind storm and compelled to land in the wilderness. Nevertheless, while the flesh of the quail was in their mouths, YHWH sent a plague through Israel, killing many; the place would be named Kibroth-hattaavah, graves of those who craved, since they buried there so many who craved meat (Numbers 11:33-34).

The people then traveled to Hazeroth (Numbers 11:35). There Aaron and Miriam, Moses’ siblings, complained against him on account of his Kushite wife (Numbers 12:1). While many have tried to associate “Kushite” with somewhere in the desert areas to associate her with Zipporah, the natural understanding is for a Kushite to be a woman from Nubia, modern-day southern Egypt and northern Sudan. As indicated, we do not know what has happened with Zipporah. Clearly something about Moses’ marriage to the Kushite woman, whether in the marriage itself or in the conduct of Moses’ wife, led Aaron and Miriam to feel slighted or made insecure about their position. Their presumption was laid out in Numbers 12:2: had YHWH not spoken and worked through them as well?

YHWH would not countenance this: Moses was the most meek and humble of men, somewhat well exemplified in his response to Eldad and Medad and their prophesying (Numbers 12:3). YHWH called Moses, Aaron, and Miriam together at the tent of meeting (Numbers 12:4). YHWH called Aaron and Miriam to Him, and laid it out: YHWH would speak through prophets, but Moses was different, faithful in YHWH’s house, with whom YHWH spoke face to face and clearly, not in riddles (Numbers 12:5-7).

It was not wise or smart for Aaron and Miriam to speak against Moses, and the anger of YHWH burned against them: after He departed, Miriam displayed a skin condition which led to her having skin “like snow,” perhaps white or wet or both, and unclean (Numbers 12:8-10). Aaron begged Moses to not hold their sin against them and have Miriam be like a stillbirth displaying abnormalities, which would attest to a fairly significant case of skin disease; Moses cried to YHWH for her healing (Numbers 12:11-13). YHWH responded by suggesting she would have suffered disgrace for seven days if her father had spat in her face, and so she should be shut out of the camp for seven days and could then be brought back (Numbers 12:14). Thus Miriam was shut out for seven days, and Israel remained at Hazeroth throughout that time; ostensibly she was healed and brought back in, and Israel would set out again for the Wilderness of Paran (Numbers 12:15).

Some have wondered if the fact Miriam was afflicted with the skin disease meant it was mostly Miriam who was casting aspersions about Moses, with Aaron acting only as an accessory. Such is possible, but it would have been beyond scandalous for the High Priest to experience a skin condition, so perhaps YHWH was unwilling to punish Aaron similarly even though he was equally worthy of it. Miriam being attacked with a skin disease to make her skin white might be imagined in contrast with the blackness of Moses’ Kushite wife, especially if Miriam’s hostility was somehow related to ethnic difference; yet all such thoughts remain speculative.

Thus Moses had doubts about what God might do and proved exasperated with the people; thus the people rebelled against God; thus Aaron and Miriam proved presumptuous. The presentation of the narratives in Numbers 10:11-11:35, at least, seem to reverse mirror the narratives of Exodus 16:1-18:27: the people cry out for food; Moses spoke with his father-in-law; and Moses is overwhelmed and needs assistance by means of officials. But Israel is not the same after Sinai as they were before it. Before Sinai they were a motley crew, a mixed multitude; their basic needs were imperiled, and Moses was inexperienced. Since Sinai YHWH has organized them; Moses has gained in experience and understanding. The people are no longer begging for any kind of food; now they take the manna for granted, and despise it in their lust for meat. Moses should know better, but was still overwhelmed and needed assistance. Moses once stood between God and the people to defend the people; now he wants God to kill him because of how exasperated he is by the people.

In this way the events to be narrated in Numbers 13:1-14:45 should prove less surprising, even if no less distressing. The Israelites did not fully trust in God; they would all pursue their craving to some degree or another, and fall prey to presumption in their own ways. Yet Moses remained faithful in God’s house; yet he and all Israel would look forward to the day in which the Son would arrive and fulfill all God had promised and hoped for in Israel (cf. Hebrews 3:1-6). May we faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit and find life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah, and Hazeroth appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Service and Betrayal

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).

In John 13:1-3, John the Evangelist heightened the drama as he began to describe Jesus’ final supper with His disciples and His final exhortations to them. The evening meal before the Passover was ongoing; Jesus knew how all things were in motion which would lead to His suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension: He had loved His disciples to the end, exemplified in all which had been narrated in John 1:1-12:50; He knew He would soon be departing to be with His Father; Satan had already put into Judas Iscariot’s heart to betray Jesus. Everything which has taken place so far was leading to this moment. We do well to understand this intense framing in terms of all which will transpire between John 13:4-17:26: at this pivotal moment, just before everything goes down, Jesus would provide His final instruction to His disciples before His departure. We can tell how much of an impact it made on John the Evangelist, since His narration of these events represents a significant portion of his Gospel.

Yet we can also profitably understand the intense framing of John 13:1-3 as appropriately emphasizing and intensifying what Jesus was about to do for His disciples: as everything was in motion, and it was all going down, Jesus got up in the middle of the dinner, prepared Himself appropriately, and then began washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:4-5).

John the Evangelist focused on Simon Peter’s reaction in John 13:6-10: Peter asked Jesus if He would wash his feet; Jesus explained Peter would not understand now, but would later; Peter protested and refused; Jesus told him he had no share in Jesus if Jesus did not wash his feet; Peter then wanted Jesus to wash his whole body. It has been common to interpret Peter’s behavior at this moment in terms of his propensity toward impetuousness: first Peter did not want Jesus to wash his feet at all, and then, all of a sudden, Peter wants a full bath!

But we perhaps do better to understand Peter’s reactions as perhaps more outward and forceful than the other disciples, but no less in the minds of those other disciples, and as well representing the social implications within the context. In the ancient world it was a custom to have one’s feet washed as part of being welcomed into a home. Ancient people wore sandals or went barefoot; to this day feet can get very dirty if we walk around in sandals all day, and it would have been all the worse in the ancient world when most people would throw out their effluent onto the streets. Foot washing was not a glamorous work: it would normally be reserved for those with the least social status, a slave whenever possible, and even then, the slave with the least standing in the household.

To this end, Jesus’ behavior would have been very troubling and uncomfortable for the disciples. Jesus had gotten up in the middle of the dinner to wash feet; this itself was unexpected, since normally feet would have been washed when the guests would have arrived for dinner. We would not be wrong in assuming they had already had their feet washed earlier; that Jesus would do it again would indicate some kind of deliberate ritual or didactic purpose. Peter may be impetuous, but if nothing else, Peter was always quite aware of the difference in standing between himself and Jesus; Peter knew very well how it was Peter who should be washing Jesus’ feet, not vice versa, and such is why he strongly protested against Jesus washing his feet (cf. Luke 5:1-10). We can easily imagine Peter only reluctantly allowing Jesus to wash his feet after Jesus had thrown down the gauntlet, no doubt feeling very uncomfortable at this violation of every norm and status surrounding foot washing. To this end perhaps Peter wanted Jesus to wash his head and his hands as a way of blunting the shame; perhaps, in his mind, it would have been less shameful for Jesus to wash him thoroughly than just having his feet washed. Or perhaps Peter reconciled himself to the action by thinking Jesus was providing a purifying cleansing, and thus wanted to be more fully cleansed. Either way, John the Evangelist has significantly slowed down the timing and pacing of the narrative so his audience might “sit” in the same awkwardness and discomfort in which the disciples sat.

Jesus would not wash Peter fully, because just like a person whose feet only were dirty and thus only washes their feet, they were clean, but not all of them; John the Evangelist then added the comment of how Jesus thus spoke regarding the one who was about to betray Him (John 13:10-11). We would be unwise to read too much into Jesus’ statement of how the disciples were “clean”: He was speaking about their relationships with Him. It is worth pointing out here how in John’s narration, Judas remained at the dinner at this time, and would only leave after a few moments (cf. John 13:26-30). Thus John strongly implied Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet. Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet while each of them knew what was about to take place: Judas at least already had the idea of betraying Jesus, if not having already made provisional contact and plans to do so; Jesus knew what Judas was going to do (cf. Luke 22:3-6, John 13:2, 11). And Jesus washed Judas’ feet anyway. There is no more compelling example of Jesus’ love, humility, and faithful service than such an act. It also helps to explain how bitterly the betrayal must have felt not only to Jesus but to Judas’ fellow disciples.

Jesus afterward dressed Himself again and returned to the table and explained what had just happened: they called Him Teacher and Lord, and did so correctly, and He just washed their feet; if He, their Teacher and Lord, washed their feet, then they should wash one another’s feet and follow the example Jesus gave them, and they would be blessed if they did so (John 13:12-17). Ever since many have aspired to follow Jesus’ example literally, and some may find some benefit in going about literally washing the feet of others. Yet just as Jesus’ act of foot washing in the middle of the meal was most likely more performative than functional, as a didactic ritual experience, so this kind of foot washing in an assembly context would prove a bit more performative than functional. Paul speaking of worthy widows as having “washed the feet of the saints” in 1 Timothy 5:10 would further reinforce the premise: perhaps those widows actually did wash the feet of fellow Christians, but such would not be the only way they would serve their fellow Christians, and what proved virtuous about the washing of feet was not in the washing of the feet but in its act of service. Jesus’ point, which John the Evangelist made incredibly explicit and thus worthy of our emphasis, was for Christians to serve fellow Christians and others. Not only should Christians serve fellow Christians and others, but they should be willing to do the kinds of acts of service which are generally associated with those of lower social standing without grumbling. There is no job or task which is “beneath” the Christian; if our Lord and Savior washed feet, we have no right presuming we are “too good” for or “above” any given act of service.

John the Evangelist thus presented part of the story of Jesus’ final dinner with His disciples in John 13:1-17 to powerfully and viscerally emphasize the importance of Christian love and humility exemplified in acts of service. Jesus washed feet; go and serve others: it would be hard to make the point as powerfully and succinctly as this. If Christians find anything about the practice of this example challenging and difficult, such is their own problem rooted in an unwise and ungodly sense of arrogance and pride.

Yet Jesus’ instruction was not for all of them. Quoting Psalm 41:9, and distressed in spirit, Jesus confessed how one of the disciples would betray Him in John 13:18-21. The hearer or reader has been well prepared for this moment since John the Evangelist has taken every opportunity to remind the hearer or reader how Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus. But the disciples themselves were not as prepared for this moment. Jesus said these things in advance so the disciples would understand how it had all been foretold and they would believe He was and is the Christ. Judas’ betrayal did not mean God in Christ had to readjust and go with Plan B or Plan C; Judas’ betrayal, and all it would unleash, was in fact Plan A and had always been Plan A (John 13:19; cf. Acts 2:23). Those who accept those Jesus sends accepts Jesus and the Father who sent Jesus; such is why we accept the apostolic witness regarding Jesus and should continue to put confidence in the message of what God accomplished in Christ as faithfully proclaimed through what has been made known by the Spirit in the witness of Scripture (John 13:20).

The hearer or reader of John’s Gospel is neither shocked nor surprised by Jesus’ confession of His imminent betrayal; John the Evangelist has taken every possible opportunity to remind the hearer or reader of how Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus. Yet at this point in the narrative John implicitly confessed how none of this was immediately obvious at any time beforehand. After Jesus declared one of the disciples would betray Him, John did not say, “and everyone looked at Judas Iscariot.” Instead, John reported how the disciples looked at each other, unsure about who would do so. For the first time in the narrative, John spoke of himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” as one reclining at the privileged position next to Jesus; this may well indicate John was the host, or family of the host, of the whole dinner (John 13:23). This detail was given to explain how and why Simon Peter gestured to John to be the one to ask Jesus of whom He spoke (John 13:24). That Peter would ask John to do it should be telling: was it not normally Peter who would be the one to say or ask what everyone else was thinking? Peter had no desire to be the one who asked lest suspicion fall upon him; perhaps this is why John described himself here as the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” as having a sufficiently close relationship to be more above and beyond suspicion.

John then asked Jesus, and Jesus identified the disciple by giving him a piece of bread dipped in the dish; He gave it to Judas Iscariot and told him to do quickly what he was about to do (John 13:25-27). John the Evangelist also provided further editorial commentary: at the time no one understood why Jesus spoke thus to Judas; the disciples thought He was telling Judas to go and buy what was needed for the feast or to give something to the poor since he was the treasurer (John 13:28-29). Judas went out immediately afterward; John indicated it happened at night (John 13:30).

Christians are understandably tempted to demonize Judas Iscariot, and we mean this in a very concrete way: we want to turn him into a kind of demon. We have continually noted how John the Evangelist displayed the sting of the betrayal with every editorial comment he made at every possible point at which the narrative provided him an opportunity to do so. Yet we must understand why the betrayal hurt so badly: Judas Iscariot was a full disciple of Jesus, as much a disciple of Jesus as Peter or John or Andrew or anyone else. For that matter, Judas would not be the only disciple betraying Jesus that night; Peter would deny Jesus three times, and the rest of the disciples would have likely done the same had they been in Peter’s predicament (cf. John 13:38, 18:15-18, 25-27). We all want to understand why, and we can all look at various possibilities and reasons for why Judas betrayed Jesus. But we do ourselves a disservice if we look for those reasons in order to try to tell ourselves how we would never do anything of the sort and we would never betray Jesus. We desperately want Judas Iscariot to be a terrible human being so we do not have to consider the prospect of how we might be the ones to betray Jesus in some way or another. But if Judas Iscariot was a full disciple, as he was, and it was not immediately obvious to the other eleven disciples that Judas would be the one to betray Jesus, as it turned out, and if Jesus did not treat Judas Iscariot any differently even knowing he would be the one to betray Him, as He did not, then the possibility remains that any disciple might betray Jesus, as is indeed the case. We are all more like Judas Iscariot than any of us would like to be. If it had always been obvious Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus, it might have been easier for John the Evangelist to countenance and stomach; its very unexpected nature goes a long way to explain the depth of the bitterness John the Evangelist felt about the whole matter.

We can only imagine what was going through the mind of Judas Iscariot. We can view this scene as a sort of “anti-communion.” Of the four Gospel accounts, only John the Evangelist passed over the establishment of the Lord’s Supper in silence; he likely knew how it was well attested in the other Gospels and wanted instead to focus on Jesus’ foot washing example which the other Evangelists had passed over. But Jesus giving the bread dipped in the dish to Judas Iscariot represented the closest thing to it in John’s account. In no way is Jesus giving Judas Iscariot the Eucharist/Communion/the Lord’s Supper; instead, after Jesus gave Judas Iscariot the bread dipped in the dish and Judas ate it, John related how Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27). Those who would suggest Satan took control of Judas at this point go well beyond what the textual evidence would allow; likewise those who would suggest a contradiction between John 13:27 and John 13:2, as if what John is narrating as a series of actions cannot involve dynamic movement from thought/preparation to action. Instead we suggest John the Evangelist characterized the moment as “anti-communion.” In the Lord’s Supper, Christians eat the bread and the fruit of the vine as the body and blood of Jesus to share in His life; when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he went out to betray the body and blood of Jesus to death. Christians call the Lord’s Supper “communion” because partaking of the body and blood of Jesus represents their shared participation in Jesus, as if Jesus is in them (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17); when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he alienated himself from Jesus, and instead was sharing in participation with Satan, who thus “entered” him. In the Lord’s Supper observed on Sundays, Christians celebrate the death of Christ on the day of His resurrection to honor eternal life; when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he committed himself, however unconsciously, to bring death to Jesus and ultimately himself. From this point on, Jesus would speak to the eleven in ways to bring them in to share in life (cf. John 13:31-17:26); by giving Judas Iscariot the bread dipped in the dish, Jesus in a real way cast Judas Iscariot out, and he was handed over to Satan to do his diabolical deed.

Thus John the Evangelist described Jesus’ act of service and announced His betrayal in dramatically powerful ways. As Christians we do well to imagine ourselves as participants in these moments, to consider how our Lord and Teacher has served us, and thus how we should serve one another, and how each and every one of us has it within ourselves to betray Jesus. We do well to thus consider ourselves so that we may commit more fully to Jesus, to share in communion with Him in the Lord’s Supper and through our thoughts, feelings, and actions on a daily basis, and to make sure we never are given the “bread dipped in the dish,” to share in an “anti-communion” which casts us out to the Evil One and to be alienated from life and light. May we faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit and share in eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Service and Betrayal appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

False Dichotomy

If you love Jesus, then you will read this article. If you refuse to read this article, you do not love Jesus.

How do the statements above strike you? They prove full of rhetorical bombast; they might influence some people’s behavior.

But if you are left wondering if they do not capture all of the valid possibilities involved, and especially if the limitations imposed seem deliberate, you would be correct: the statements above represent the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

In a false dichotomy, a set of choices offered regarding an issue are sharply circumscribed when not logically or ontologically demanded. By strict definition, false dichotomies are false binaries, with only two options given; colloquially, however, we would also speak of a situation in which more than two options were given when yet even further would be theoretically possible as a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are also often called false dilemmas, although properly the false claim itself is the false dichotomy, and the overall argument itself would thus be made a false dilemma.

False dichotomies often seem legitimate because many people, by personality or training, prefer binary, “black and white” thinking. Likewise, human language and thinking also tend to prefer binary, either/or frameworks. Furthermore, there are certain domains in which a binary is not logically fallacious: an event either occurred or it did not; a thing exists or it does not exist; and such like. People tend to be quite familiar with the idea of contradictories, in which one proposition in an argument must be correct, and thus any other proposition(s) must be incorrect. And yet, in many aspects of life, our arguments will involve contraries: opposing propositions regarding which one perhaps represents the truth, but in fact all options might be false, or there may be aspects of truth found in many of the options. People thus prove tempted to suggest arguments as contradictories when they are really contraries, leading to the presentation of false dichotomies.

In this way false dichotomies end up saying much more about the people who express them than the subject matter at hand. Many people advance false dichotomies with earnestness, even if their argumentation remains logically fallacious. Perhaps the person has come from a more authoritarian heritage or perspective and attempts to reduce everything to a “black and white” binary; perhaps the person simply has experienced a failure of imagination about the possibilities inherent regarding the proposition or topic at hand. Maybe other reasons are involved which come from a place of sincerity. Unfortunately, however, many times people advance false dichotomies with deceptive and manipulative purposes. Such people remain aware of the existence of other possibilities, a spectrum of gray between the black and white of the binary. Yet they exercise motivated reasoning in advancing false dichotomies, attempting to force others to fit the binary to advance their economic, political, and sadly enough, even religious purposes.

We find plenty of examples of false dichotomies in the realms of politics and religion. Politicians and partisans invest a lot of resources into framing political discourse in terms of two options: choose party A and its candidate, who stands for all which is good, right, and holy, and oppose party B and its candidate, who hates the country and wants to completely destroy everything which is good, right, and holy. In this way both the choice itself and those involved are characterized in terms of false dichotomies. Note well how the existence of any other party or viewpoint are suppressed or dismissed. How many times have we heard some variation on the theme of “not voting for candidate/party A is a vote for candidate/party B”? Such a claim is fallacious: to not vote for a candidate or a party does not demand the endorsement of the other candidate or party; one may, in fact, support an entirely different candidate or party, or not support any of the parties or candidates. In a similar way, framing the party or candidate with which one has more agreement as more “righteous” or “good,” and framing the party or candidate with which one has more disagreement as “wicked” or “evil” almost invariably leads to justifying or rationalizing those ways in which one’s preferred party proves less than righteous or good, and likewise trying to dismiss, neglect, or suppress those ways in which the party or candidate with whom you disagree displays some form of righteousness or goodness. This is the fruit of the false dichotomy, for no political party or politician is either good or evil. Binary thinking has not elevated American political discourse.

The tendency toward false dichotomies in religion prove very strong, and for understandable reasons. Christians seek to affirm the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit, and have been encouraged to call out and resist every evil way (John 14:6, Ephesians 5:11-13). For generations many sincere, well-intending Christians have been profoundly shaped by authoritarian thought patterns and structures, and thus they tend to see everything in the world and in the faith in “black and white” terms. They look for something to either be right or wrong; they have been conditioned to believe looking at a situation in any other way leads to moral relativism.

Let none be deceived: it is possible to attempt to consider certain matters in terms of multiple options or a spectrum in ways which leads to excusing of false doctrines or sin. When God has condemned certain ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as sinful, we should affirm those ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as sinful, and should not attempt to justify or rationalize such behavior (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, etc.) But not every matter of the faith can be so easily established in “black or white” terms; such is why those with such a “black or white” perspective find Romans 14:1-15:7 or 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 challenging, since the eating of meat or observing a day is not intrinsically either right or wrong, or it is not just about whether something is righteous or sinful, but also whether it is profitable or beneficial: you can eat meat in one context and be righteous before God, but if you eat meat in such a way as to cause a Christian to stumble, or to attempt to impose your confidence about meat eating on another who does not have that conviction, you have sinned and done wrong; something can be right to do but may not be the most profitable or wise decision in a given situation, and the Christian would, in that instance, do better by avoiding the practice.

Many times, false dichotomies in religious discourse are begotten on account of a failure of imagination. Few situations better exemplify this unfortunate trend than in how many brethren have considered the work and presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian. Many of the arguments advanced to support the “word only” position, expecting the only lasting influence of the Holy Spirit upon the believer to be mediated by Scripture, are often predicated on false dichotomies: either the Spirit works directly or through the word; if the Father and the Son do not indwell a person, neither can the Spirit, etc. The possibility of God in Christ dwelling representatively in the Christian by means of the Spirit according to Romans 9:8-11 was not countenanced or imagined by many of the disputants. Jesus’ being the embodied Word of God which we must consume to have life, as made known in John 1:1-18, 6:23-71, introduces another exegetical possibility which always must be kept in mind when the New Testament speaks about God’s “Word”; since Jesus was the embodiment of that which God communicated by means of the Spirit, when we see the “Word of God” discussed somewhere in the New Testament, we cannot so easily insist on it representing only the Scriptures. The category error of considering God’s “supernatural” work in terms of either “providence” or the “miraculous” easily leads to the false dichotomy which would consider the work of the Spirit as either providentially provided for in Scripture or miraculously given through God’s dispensation, without giving any space in the imagination for a continual work of God which does not sit comfortably in either the category of the miraculous or the providential.

The Spirit is active in the work of sanctification (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:13), and sanctification goes well beyond information acquisition and distribution; focusing on the work of the Spirit primarily in terms of information acquisition and distribution has thus led to false dichotomies and a host of other logical fallacies as well as the establishment of arguments and doctrines foreign to what God made known in Christ through the Spirit in the pages of Scripture. Christian faith has never been a matter of “mind or heart,” or “reason or experience”; God in Christ through the Spirit has always expected Christians to both know and love Him, and to both learn of and walk in His ways. One can actively search the Scriptures and seek to come to a better understanding of what God has thus made known in Christ through the Spirit and confess they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, just as the Apostles testified (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:14-16, 6:19-20, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13, 2:22). No false dichotomy is thus needed.

Christians are also tempted toward the false dichotomy of seeing people as either “good” or “bad.” The Bible has spoken clearly: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). None of us are truly “good people.” All of us have sinned and continue to have the propensity to sin. Unfortunately, even Christians striving toward faithfulness to God in many respects also often fall prey to sin in other respects. Sometimes the pervasiveness of their sin gives reason to question if their faith was truly sincere or if it were simply a façade overlaying a worldly, greedy, lustful heart. Sometimes even the best of people fall prey to evil desires and temptations or are led astray by deceptive actors. At the same time, save perhaps for a few truly diabolically psychopathic people, almost everyone has some capacity for good: people tend to love those who love them and do good for them, if nothing else (cf. Matthew 5:45-47). Therefore, to suggest or to look at the world in terms of the “good people” and the “bad people” proves not only fundamentally fallacious but contrary to what God has made known in Christ. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was not wrong when he said, “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.” Christians do well to recalibrate how they look at the world and themselves, to cease being surprised at the sins which become manifest from “righteous Christians” and to confess and lament them, and be willing to recognize that which is good and righteous in those with whom they disagree and would generally characterize as living in iniquity and wickedness.

False dichotomies will always represent a tempting fallacy for us. It is always easier to see things in binary, “black and white” terms, and to resist understanding aspects in terms of a spectrum, admit multiple possibilities, and above all, to maintain humility in remembering how limited our perspective is and how there might well be other possibilities we have not imagined. Furthermore, deceptive and manipulative actors will continue to assert frameworks and arguments saturated with false dichotomies or binaries in order to advance their economic, political, or perhaps even religious advantage. We must confess there will be times when a dichotomy is not false; in humility, however, we must also confess there will be many more times when any attempt to force a given argument or situation to fit into a binary proves problematic and fallacious. May we resist the tendency to frame things in terms of false dichotomies while seeking to do all things to the glory and honor of God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post False Dichotomy appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Babylon the Whore

From Revelation 6:1-16:21, John’s vision is punctuated by three cycles of seven judgments: the seven seals (Revelation 6:1-8:1), the seven trumpets (Revelation 8:2-11:19), and the seven bowls (Revelation 14:1-16:21). The rest of John’s vision will feature pictures of the Jesus the Lamb and two women: the faithful woman of Revelation 12:1-14 who will become the Bride of the Lamb in Revelation 19:5-10, 21:1-22:6, and Babylon, the woman empowered by the dragon and his beasts, of whom and whose fate John sees in Revelation 17:1-19:5.

John is carried in the Spirit into the wilderness where he sees the woman Babylon (Revelation 17:1-18). Babylon derives from Hebrew babel, “confusion,” so named because of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages there (Genesis 11:1-9). The Chaldean, Neo-Babylonian Empire will overthrow the Kingdom of Judah and destroy Jerusalem and its Temple in 586 BCE. The prophets of Israel frequently denounced Babylon for its arrogance, idolatry, and behavior toward Israel (Isaiah 13:1-14:23, Jeremiah 50:1-51:64); John is thus shown a picture of the “new Babylon,” Rome, in very much the same way: Rome is now the human world power empowered by the Evil One who is hostile toward God and His people.

Babylon is described as a whore, seducing all the people of the world into coming and participating in her sexual immorality (Revelation 17:1-5). She is described as drunk on the blood of the saints (Revelation 17:6). She exhibits great pride in her standing and power (Revelation 18:7). When she is mourned by kings and merchants, it is because of the loss of the great market for all sorts of luxury items and slaves (Revelation 18:9-20). Plenty of actual prostitution went on in the Roman Empire; the luxurious, debauched lifestyle of the Romans is well-attested in ancient literature. The mention of slaves is important since the entire Roman enterprise was built on the back of slaves (Revelation 18:13). Yet the full concern of the whoredom of Babylon is her idolatry: she promulgates the service of many idols, including Rome herself and her emperors, represented by the beast, and persecutes the Christians, the people of the True God, because of her devotion to her idols and the power provided by the Evil One. Idolatry described in terms of whoredom and sexual immorality is pervasive in the Old Testament (Isaiah 1:21, Ezekiel 16:15-43, 23:1-49, Hosea 1:1-3:5), as well as the nations acting as whores on account of idolatry (Isaiah 23:15-17, 47:5-15, Nahum 3:1, 4).

Babylon is supported by the beast envisioned in Revelation 13:1-10. We are given the picture of what the beast’s heads and horns mean in Revelation 17:9-13: the seven mountains upon which Babylon is seated/seven kings and ten successive kings. Rome is famous for being settled upon seven hills; its Empire was established and perpetuated by the efforts of its emperors. Speculation abounds regarding the specifics of the kings, but we do well to see in them that the Roman power has existed, exists at the present, and has a future before it will ultimately be vanquished. Its end will come from those within it who support it as well as its surrounding enemies: the lust for power consumes the one who maintains it, and so it will be with Rome, all according to the purpose of God’s will (Revelation 17:15-18).

As the luxuriantly dressed whore, Rome as Babylon attempts to appear as legitimate, wealthy, beautiful, enticing, and worth the investment, yet internally is corrupt, evil, illegitimate, and seeking after the wrong pursuits with the wrong means, and thus incurring God’s condemnation. The angels proclaim the destruction of the new Babylon as accomplished fact: it will be desolate, even though it once enriched the kings and merchants of the earth, sharing the fate of old Babylon (Revelation 18:1-3; cf. Isaiah 13:19-22, 14:3-23, 34:11-15, Jeremiah 50:2, Zephaniah 2:13-15). God’s people are exhorted to come out of new Babylon, lest they share in the plagues and judgments coming upon her, just as with old Babylon (Revelation 18:4-6; cf. Isaiah 48:20, 52:11, Jeremiah 50:8, 51:6-9, 45, Zechariah 2:7). The judgment comes quickly; the smoke of her burning will go up forever, and the sounds of joy, commerce, and life will not be heard in her again (Revelation 18:7-9, 21-24). The merchants enriched by the new Babylon will stand afar off and mourn and weep for their lost income (Revelation 18:11-17), just as their ancestors did for Tyre in Ezekiel 26:1-28:19 (and there is a school of thought which suggests that Ezekiel uses Tyre as a cipher for old Babylon), a powerfully evocative message for those of us who lived through the economic challenges of 2008-2009. The kings, the merchants, and the mariners may weep over the new Babylon, but only inasmuch as they have personally experienced loss; they seek to stay away from the devastation, demonstrating the ephemeral nature of their attachment to the whore Babylon (Revelation 18:10-17). The whore Babylon, Rome in the first century, shared the fate of old Babylon, and every “Babylon” which as arisen after her will suffer the same. The reason is succinct: in her was found the blood of the saints (Revelation 18:24).

While the condemnation of Babylon has caused great mourning and lamentation from those seduced by her on the earth, it is the cause of great rejoicing in heaven and among the people of God (Revelation 18:19-20). The scene returns to heaven, and John hears the threefold hallelujahs of the heavenly multitude, the twenty-four elders, and the four living creatures (Revelation 19:1-5). This is the only time “hallelujah” is found in the New Testament, and it is upon the occasion of God’s true and righteous judgments upon Babylon the whore, her corruption of the earth, and her persecution of the saints.

Babylon the whore, the Satanically empowered imitation of the good, the fraudulent mistress who seduced so many to follow after her, is therefore destroyed; the Lord God Almighty reigns, and therefore the time of the marriage of the Lamb will be soon (Revelation 19:6-7). At this time the scene then shifts to the Bride, the honest and good woman who has persevered in her trust in God and the Lamb from beginning to end: she has made herself ready, and she is clothed with bright and pure linen, the good works of the saints (Revelation 19:7-8). The fourth of seven beatitudes in Revelation is offered to those invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

John is understandably overcome with joy and exaltation, and bows down before the angelic messenger; he is told not to do so, since he is a fellow servant of God with him and all who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Instead he is to bow down before God (Revelation 19:10). John is then told that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and we do well to keep that in mind. Those who accept and proclaim the testimony of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, will be invited to the marriage supper and make up the Bride of Christ, His church (2 Corinthians 11:2-3, Ephesians 5:22-33). Those who reject the testimony of the Lamb are under the power of the dragon, having been seduced by whichever “Babylon the whore” is presently ascendant. Let us be encouraged in our faith in the Lamb, come out and stay away from Babylon the whore, and strive to be part of the Bride of Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Babylon the Whore appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Seven Bowls

The vision which Jesus grants to John seems to follow a cyclical pattern: the opening of the seven seals led into the sounding of the seven trumpets (cf. Revelation 6:1-11:19). An interlude takes place between the sixth seal/trumpet and the seventh seal/trumpet (Revelation 7:1-17, 10:1-11:14). The images alternate between scenes of judgment and vindication. The 144,000 introduced in Revelation 7:1-8 are found again in Revelation 14:1-5; the seventh trumpet proclaimed the concluded judgment (Revelation 11:15-10) while judgment is seen again in Revelation 14:14-20. Therefore, we should not be surprised when the description of the seven bowl judgments amplify and reinforce these cycles (Revelation 15:1-16:21).

After having seen the earth reaped and gleaned, John then sees the seven angels with the seven plagues which will be poured out of seven bowls (Revelation 15:1, 7). He also sees the sea of glass as from Revelation 4:6 but this time as of fire, and near it those who conquered the beast, and they sing the song of Moses and the Lamb, praising the Lord God Almighty without any reference to themselves (Revelation 15:1-4). John then sees the sanctuary of the tent of witness opened, the seven angels with the seven bowls come forth, and such great smoke from the glory of God so that none could enter until the plagues were finished (Revelation 15:5-8).

The angels were then to pour out the bowls (Revelation 16:1). The seven bowls conclude a threefold pattern of sevens, indicating completeness: the seven seals (Revelation 6:1-8:1), the seven trumpets (Revelation 8:2-11:19), and now the seven bowls (Revelation 16:1-21). These bowls are vessels whose contents are quickly and easily poured out, and they contain the wrath of God (Revelation 16:1). The events described follow the patterns of the plagues in Exodus 7:14-12:32 as well as the seven seals and seven trumpets but in a much more complete, thorough, and devastating way, indicating the finality of the judgment involved.

As the first four bowls are poured out, sores break out on those who bore the mark of the beast and prostrated before its image, the sea and the sources of fresh water were turned to blood, and the sun scorched people with fire (Revelation 16:2-9). These judgments are deemed appropriate since they exact justice upon those who killed the saints and prophets, and the people continue to blaspheme and do not repent.

The fifth bowl is poured out directly upon the throne of the beast and darkness covers his kingdom. This darkness is so profound that it causes great anguish among the people, and yet they still do not repent (Revelation 16:10-11). The sixth bowl is poured out upon the Euphrates river and its water is dried up; meanwhile, frogs come forth from the mouths of the dragon, beast, and false prophet (the second beast of Revelation 13:11-18), which are called unclean spirits who do signs and persuade the kings of the earth to assemble at “Armageddon” (Revelation 16:12-16).

One might expect a vast battle to begin, but as the seventh bowl is poured out, a voice comes forth from the temple proclaiming, “it is done” (Revelation 16:17). Flashes of lightning, thunder, and a great earthquake take place (Revelation 16:18; cf. Revelation 8:5, 11:19). Babylon, the great city, is divided into three parts by it, islands flee away, mountains are not to be found, and almost one hundred pound hailstones fall from the sky onto people (Revelation 16:19-21). They curse God because of the severity of the hail (Revelation 16:21).

People have sought to identify these descriptions with concrete historical events for centuries; the results are varied and tend to tell more about the interpreters than the text itself. As the seven seals indicated the sorts of judgments that were soon to happen, and the seven trumpets began to proclaim the execution of those judgments, so the seven bowls represent the completion and ultimate fulfillment of God’s judgments upon those who stand against Him: Satan, the world secular and religious powers empowered by Satan who arrogate against God, and those who follow after them. People rely on their health and the quality of their land and water; if they stand opposed to God, God removes these blessings from them. World powers rail at God and persecute His people: as God directly challenged the authority of Pharaoh and overthrew him, so will He do to Rome all other powers that may stand against him, attacking the very “throne of the beast.” People will conspire to go to war; God will meet them there. Whenever people arrogate against God and resist His purposes, the time will come when His wrath will be revealed. And, as before, despite the suffering and misery, people will remain rebellious and hardened against God (Isaiah 8:21, Jeremiah 5:3, 6:29-30, Ezekiel 24:13, Romans 1:21).

Meanwhile, the people of God stand and praise the Lord God Almighty. Some have died for their faith, but their “defeat” is really victory, for they have overcome the beast through their death. They proclaim the song of Moses and the Lamb, recounting both the victory of God over the oppressive pagan power in the days of the Exodus as well as the victory of God over the oppressive spiritual powers of darkness through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Exodus 15:1-18, Romans 8:1-2, 31-39, Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 12:9). They no longer experience distress, pain, and misery as it is poured out upon those who oppose God (Revelation 7:16).

The dragon, the beast, and the false prophet cause great distress and pain for the people of God. Yet John is beginning to see their end: as God’s judgments were brought against Egypt, Assyria, Israel, and Babylon in turn, so they will come upon Rome and every other world power arrogating itself against the Lord God Almighty. The victory is in sight: Rome as the whore Babylon must first be introduced in her fullness, and disposed of in turn, and the grand pageant will reach its glorious end. Let us not be distressed by opposition or discouraged away from the faith; let us stay awake and obtain the blessing of the people of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Seven Bowls appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Hour Has Come

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John the brother of Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, was writing 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). He began by speaking of the Word of God, the Creator, the life and light of men, who took on flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1-18). He then described the calling of the first disciples, Jesus’ first sign at the wedding in Cana, the events which took place while Jesus was present at the Passover in Jerusalem, and Jesus’ return to Galilee via Samaria (John 1:19-4:54). John the Evangelist then set forth Jesus’ healing of a lame man at Bethesda and the storm of controversy it engendered, Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, and His challenging description of Himself as the Bread of Life (John 5:1-6:71). John the Evangelist then described a long series of engagements and instructions of Jesus around Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles, featuring the healing of the blind man and Jesus’ teachings as the Light of the world and the Good Shepherd (John 7:1-10:21). Jesus would echo similar teachings and again identify Himself with God while teaching during the Feast of the Dedication, or Hanukkah (John 10:22-42). Jesus would raise His friend Lazarus from the dead, a notable sign proclaimed throughout Jerusalem and Judea, and the basis on which the religious authorities looked for an opportunity to have Jesus killed (John 11:1-57).

John the Evangelist then related the story he had anticipated in John 11:2: six days before the Passover, while Jesus was a guest in the house of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive oil and wiped His feet with her hair (John 12:1-3). In John’s telling of the story, Judas Iscariot was scandalized by the experience, asking why the oil was not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to the poor; a denarius was about a day’s wage for a laborer, so we can understand the expense of the gift in terms of about ten months of a living wage (John 12:4-5).

John the Evangelist took the opportunity to explain Judas Iscariot was not concerned for the poor; instead, he was the treasurer and was embezzling funds, and thus looking for more funds to embezzle (John 12:5-6). John the Evangelist really has it out for Judas Iscariot; we can almost feel the visceral emotional response registered in his commentary. Such represents the sting of the betrayal; none of these things were apparent at the time to anyone but Jesus, since in John 13:21-29 the disciples were perplexed when Jesus indicated one of them would betray Him, and thought Jesus was telling Judas to go give something to the poor when He told him to do quickly what he was about to do. Thus the disciples did not automatically recognize Judas Iscariot would be the betrayer in their midst. In his narration John the Evangelist went out his way to point out Judas Iscariot’s nature and perfidy.

Therefore we must be careful lest we make this kind of experience and moment more about Judas Iscariot than it deserves. Sure, Judas Iscariot has ulterior motives for his questioning of Jesus; yet in the parallel Gospel accounts of Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9, the disciples as a whole ask the same question as Judas Iscariot. Thus Judas was not asking just on his own initiative; he gave voice to the concern of all the disciples.

Jesus told them to leave her alone, for she was anointing Him for the day of His burial; they would always have the poor, but they would not always have Jesus around (John 12:7-8). Matthew and Mark’s accounts suggest a similar tenor but also want to emphasize how Mary’s deed would be remembered and proclaimed as part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as we are demonstrating and displaying right now. In this way Jesus foretold of His imminent death and departure from the disciples.

Unfortunately, Jesus’ statement about the poor has been distorted and used as a blunt instrument to condemn the poor: the poor will always be around, so why bother doing much to alleviate their condition? And yet Jesus’ statement intended the opposite of this commonly drawn inference; He was quoting from Deuteronomy 15:11, and certainly intended its conclusion:

There will never cease to be some poor people in the land; therefore, I am commanding you to make sure you open your hand to your fellow Israelites who are needy and poor in your land.

Jesus was therefore not commending a lack of concern about the poor. Instead, Jesus wanted to remind the disciples how monomaniacal focus on one aspect of the mission can lead to a distortion of the mission. Yes, there will always be the poor; there will be opportunities to help the poor, and they should be helped. But they would not always have Jesus; it thus was not wrong for Mary to use the oil in her love, service, and dedication to the Lord Jesus.

John the Evangelist then ominously reported how the chief priests planned to kill not only Jesus but also Lazarus since so many were coming to see him and believing in Jesus (John 12:9-11). Lazarus will again be mentioned in John 12:17 in reference to when Jesus resuscitated him from the dead, but otherwise will never be mentioned again in the Scriptures. Since the chief priests proved successful in having Jesus put to death, we would not be wrong to presume they had Lazarus killed as well.

The next day Jesus entered Jerusalem according to the traditions we now know as Palm Sunday: Israelites took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Jesus, crying out hosannas to the king of Israel (John 12:12-13). Jesus found a young donkey on which to sit to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9; John the Evangelist commented on how the disciples did not understand as much then, but would later (John 12:14-16). Testimony about Jesus resuscitating Lazarus was made, and crowds went out to meet him; the Pharisees lamented to one another how they could do nothing since the world was running after Jesus (John 12:17-19).

Thus John the Evangelist narrated Jesus’ triumphal entry, and we are to understand the moment as triumphant for Jesus. He is the King of Israel coming to establish the Reign of God in Jerusalem, just as the prophets had foretold. The people were hailing Him as this King of Israel, and eagerly looked forward to Him taking on the throne of His father David. We can imagine Pilate and a contingent of Roman soldiers entering Jerusalem at the same time, very much concerned about the same thing, but for different reasons: they had come to maintain order and violently suppress any such messianic fervor. We do well to consider the profound ironies presented by John the Evangelist in this text and its framing: as he would relate in his Gospel, Jesus would indeed prove to be the King of Israel establishing God’s reign, but not in the way anyone would have expected. Those who were now hailing Him as the Messiah would soon be crying out to crucify Him.

Jesus’ hour had come but was not yet complete. Some Greeks had come to prostrate before God during Passover (John 12:20); they are likely proselytes or God-fearers. They approached Philip and wanted to see Jesus; Philip and Andrew went to Jesus to speak to Him (John 12:22). Jesus’ response provided no indication of whether He actually saw these Greeks or not; it is possible they were nowhere near Him, but it is also possible they have come with Philip and Andrew and heard Jesus’ discourse.

In response to Philip and Andrew, and to all His disciples, in the hearing of the crowd, Jesus set forth His final discourse before the crowds in John 12:23-36, 44-50. Jesus declared His hour had come: the Son of Man would be glorified (John 12:23, 27). A kernel of wheat must fall into the ground and “die” so it might produce much grain; those who love their lives destroy it, but the one who hates his life in this world would gain it (John 12:24-25). Those who would serve Jesus must follow Him; where Jesus was, so would be those who serve Him; those who serve Jesus will be honored by the Father (John 12:26).

In this way Jesus proclaimed His suffering and death and set the expectation of how His disciples would have to suffer and not love their lives even to death. He spoke of death and resurrection as a way of bearing fruit. We should not understand Jesus’ declaration about “hating life” absolutely, as if we should detest and abhor the gift of life God has given us, but in terms of loving less: if we seek after self-preservation, we will lose our lives and salvation; we can only truly gain life in Christ by proving willing to suffer and even die for the cause and purposes of God in Christ in His Kingdom. John the Evangelist will reinforce continually how Jesus expected His disciples to follow in His path, and His path included the agony and suffering of His betrayal, passion, and death.

On account of these things Jesus was distressed, but He understood He could not be delivered from this hour (John 12:27). Jesus asked the Father to glorify His name, and He spoke from heaven glorifying it; some reported they heard thunder, others the voice of an angel (John 12:28-29). Jesus assured the crowds: God’s voice spoke for their benefit, not His, because the time had come for judgment of the world and the ruler of the world, Satan, would be driven out (John 12:30-31). When Jesus would be lifted up, He would draw people to Himself; John the Evangelist bore witness of how Jesus thus spoke of how Jesus would die, but we would also not be wrong to see evocations of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension in being lifted up (John 12:32-33).

The crowd was a bit confused; from many passages, perhaps especially Psalm 89:35-27, the Israelites expected the Christ would remain forever, and so how could Jesus act as if the Son of Man would be lifted up, and who was this Son of Man anyhow (John 12:34)? Jesus did not provide a direct answer; at this point not even His own disciples understood how it would all work out, and so the crowds would definitely not have the capacity for understanding. Instead Jesus urged them to walk in the light while the light remained with them lest the darkness overtake them; they could not know where they are going when walking in darkness; they should believe in the light while the light remained with them to become sons of light (John 12:35-36). Jesus would later shout out how those who believe in Jesus really believe in the Father who sent Jesus, and those who see Jesus see the Father who sent Him (John 12:44-45). Jesus had come as light into the world so those who believe in Him would not dwell in darkness (John 12:46). Jesus was not at that time going to judge those who did not obey Jesus’ words; He had come to save and not judge the world (John 12:47). On the final day, however, the words Jesus had spoken would be the basis of judgment for those who rejected Him (John 12:48). Jesus again reinforced how He did not speak on His own authority, but that of His Father; the Father’s command is eternal life, and so Jesus spoke according to what the Father told Him (John 12:49-50).

After this Jesus hid Himself from the people (John 12:36b); according to John the Evangelist, Jesus thus concluded His ministry among the people; the rest of the Gospel of John will feature Jesus’ discourses with His disciples, His betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection (John 13:1-21:25). In John 12:37-43 John the Evangelist provided commentary to sum up and conclude Jesus’ ministry as presented in John 1:35-12:50: Jesus bore witness with miraculous signs, yet the people did not believe in Him, which fulfilled the words of Isaiah in Isaiah 6:10, 53:1 (John 12:37-41). And yet many among the various Jewish authorities did believe in Him, but did not confess Him publicly in fear of the Pharisees lest they be put out of the synagogue; John derided such ones as loving the praise of men more than praise from God (John 12:42-43).

Thus John the Evangelist presented his eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus’ ministry among the people in John 1:35-12:50. May we believe in Jesus as the Christ, become sons of light, and prove willing to suffer with Him so we might be glorified in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Hour Has Come appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Judith

For too long the people of God were suffering the invasions and depredations of pagan oppressive powers. We can understand why they would tell themselves stories imagining men and women of valor who would be able to overcome armies by their faith and pious deeds. In this way we can appreciate and value the book of Judith.

The book of Judith can be found within the Old Testament Apocrypha, or Deuterocanon. The Old Testament Apocrypha/Deuterocanon should be defined as texts, or expansions of texts, which were considered part of the Greek Septuagint but not reckoned as canonically part of the Torah, Prophets, or Writings of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). “Apocrypha” is a Greek term for “hidden away”, and “Deuterocanon” is Greek for “second canon”; these terms tend to be used interchangeably for this collection of Second Temple Jewish literature which was highly esteemed but not reckoned as inspired like the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Arguments for inspiration of the Apocrypha as a peer of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings were not advanced until the late medieval/early modern era as a response to the Protestant Reformation within Roman Catholicism at the Council of Trent.

The book of Judith can be found within the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon of all the Christian traditions which maintain such a collection. The book of Judith comes down to us in Greek form. Jerome was confident the book was originally composed in Aramaic, and many maintain a similar confidence on account of the many Semitisms throughout the narrative. Hebrew versions of Judith manifest signs of being translations from the Greek; Judith was entirely unattested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The rabbis did not seem to hold the story with any high regard; many early Christians took the story at face value on account of its presence in the Septuagint.

Nevertheless, it would prove impossible to take the book of Judith as a historical narrative seriously, nor should we imagine the author ever intended for the book to be thus understood; Judith has many of the hallmarks of a Hellenistic novel. Historical figures are mentioned and feature prominently in Judith, yet remain historically quite confused. The narrative would purport to take place in the twelfth and eighteenth years of Nebuchadnezzar, which would align with 593 and 587 BCE; yet Nebuchadnezzar was identified as the king of Assyria reigning from Nineveh (Judith 1:1). The historical Nebuchadnezzar (II) was a king of Babylon who was partly responsible for the destruction and burning of the historical Nineveh in 612 BCE. The text purports this Nebuchadnezzar raised a mighty army to defeat Arphaxad king of the Medes in Ecbatana in Judith 1:1-16; in Genesis 10:22 an Arphaxad was named as a descendant of Shem, and might well have been understood as the ancestor of the Medes, but the historical king of Medes from 625 to 585 BCE was Cyaxares; he allied with Nebuchadnezzar to defeat and destroy Nineveh and the Assyrians, yet we have no records or indications of any conflict at this time between the Medes and the Babylonians. The author introduced Nebuchadnezzar’s main general as Holofernes in Judith 2:14, and he had a servant Bagoas according to Judith 12:11; there was a historical general Holofernes with a servant Bagoas who was part of a punitive expedition against people Beyond the River, but he was a general for the Persian Artaxerxes III and the campaigns took place in 350 and 343 BCE. According to the author of Judith, the Israelites were petrified at the looming invasion of Holofernes and Nebuchadnezzar’s army because they had only recently returned from exile and re-consecrated and dedicated a new temple (Judith 4:1-3), and he had Achior testify to the destruction of the First Temple, Judah’s exile, and return (Judith 5:18-19); all of this remains historically impossible since the First Temple was still standing in 593 and 587 and would only be destroyed in 586 BCE. It is convenient for the “righteous Gentile” who testified about God’s favor for Israel and who would become an Israelite to be “Achior the Ammonite” (Judith 5:5); “Achior” sounds very similar to “Ahikar”, the exemplar of the righteous political official and who featured prominently in the book of Tobit. The size of cities and armies seem quite exaggerated throughout the narrative; some of the cities, like Ecbatana, Samaria, and Jerusalem, are well-attested in history, but other city names listed, like Bethulia, Betomasthaim, Choba, and Kola, have no other basis of attestation than their identification in Judith, although in its description, “Bethulia” would almost certainly be Shechem (cf. Judith 15:3-5). By invoking Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar, the time of the sieges and ultimate destruction of Jerusalem in 597 and 586 BCE, and a well-known Persian commander who fought in a recently remembered conflict around the land of Judah, the author of Judith brought together all the sources of woe, despair, and devastation of Israel in the past, and thus be able to weave together a story with a very different ending.

The story of the book of Judith can be understood in two phases: Judith 1:1-7:32 as setting the scene, and Judith 8:1-16:25 as the story of Judith’s great victory for Israel. The catalyst for the events to come were set forth in Judith 1:1-16: Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria wanted to defeat Arphaxad king of Ecbatana in 593, and summoned assistance from across his empire; many of the people of the east rallied to Nebuchadnezzar, but all the people of the west, including Samaria and Judah, showed contempt for Nebuchadnezzar’s summons and did not provide assistance. Nebuchadnezzar proved successful in defeating Arphaxad and vowed revenge against those in the west. In 587 Nebuchadnezzar began to make good on his vow for revenge, mustering a huge army under Holofernes his general, which laid waste to Syria, Cilicia, and parts of Arabia, leading to great fear in the Levant (Judith 2:1-28). Most of the Levantine people sued Holofernes for peace; the Israelites, while greatly afraid, fasted, lamented, and besought God, yet also prepared defenses for their mountain passes and prepared to resist the Assyrian horde (Judith 3:1-4:15). Holofernes gathered the leaders of other Levantine nations and asked for an explanation for why Israel acted this way; Achior of Ammon bore witness to their origins, their Egyptian sojourn, and how their God had delivered them from Egyptian slavery and dispossessed Canaan before them; he spoke of their exile and recent return; he warned Holofernes about the God of the Israelites, and how they could only defeat Israel if their God found sin among them, but would defend them strongly if they were found righteous (Judith 5:1-21). Other Levantine commanders saw the situation differently, and Holofernes haughtily agreed with them: he cast Achior out to be with the Israelites to ostensibly suffer with them (Judith 5:22-6:10). Achior was welcomed among the Israelites; he recounted what was said and determined at the council, and the Israelites commended him and prayed to God for deliverance (Judith 6:11-21). The next day, Holofernes and the Assyrian army camped before Bethulia; on the second day, the Edomites and Moabites recommended Holofernes send a detachment to capture the spring and deprive Bethulia of its water, which they did (Judith 7:1-20). The Assyrians thus waited the Bethulians out; after thirty-four days the Israelites were ready to hand themselves over, but Uzziah their leader asked for another five days to beg God for assistance (Judith 7:21-32).

Thus the Israelites found themselves in dire straits before the Assyrian menace. At this point, the author introduced us to Judith, daughter of Merari, a Simeonite (Judith 8:1). Judith was a beautiful woman but had been widowed for over three years after her husband Manasseh died of heat stroke; she was richly supplied yet also observed the appropriate customs and feared God (Judith 8:2-8). Upon hearing of Uzziah’s desperate last call, Judith sent word to Bethulia, denouncing all of them for their lack of confidence in God, and instead encouraged them to give thanks; Uzziah was thankful for her words but pointed out the people’s condition; Judith let it be known she would go out that evening and accomplish a great and notable work and bring a message of deliverance within five days (Judith 8:9-36). After praying a profound prayer of lament over Israel’s earlier devastation and prayer for deliverance from the Assyrian host, Judith took off all her signs of widowhood, cleaned herself up, and dressed as she had formerly done for her husband (Judith 9:1-10:4). She had food prepared for a few days in a bag; the city gate was opened for her and her servant, and it did not take long before they were noticed by an Assyrian patrol (Judith 10:5-11).

At this point Judith began her ruse. She suggested she was fleeing because of certain devastation, and could tell Holofernes how to be successful without losing any soldiers; she was brought before Holofernes (Judith 10:12-23). While before Holofernes she confessed the truth of Achior’s previous speech but suggested the Israelites were so desperate as to eat food dedicated to God or declared unclean; she asked to be able to go out and pray and ascertain when Israel had done this to let Holofernes know and thus be successful in war; Holofernes and his men commended and praised her (Judith 11:1-23). Holofernes wanted her to share in a feast with them, but she would not eat the food lest it cause offense to God; for three days she went out to pray and returned just as she had spoken (Judith 12:1-9). On the fourth day Holofernes set up a special feast and wanted Judith there in order to “biblically know” her; she consented to be at the party, dressed herself up, and Holofernes burned with desire for her; Judith drank the wine she had brought and confessed it was the greatest day ever for her (Judith 12:10-19).

Holofernes drank more wine than he ever had before (Judith 12:20); all departed Holofernes’ tent, even Bagoas his servant, and Holofernes and Judith were alone there (Judith 13:1-2). Holofernes was dead asleep in his drunken stupor; Judith prayed; Judith took Holofernes’ sword; and Judith cut off Holofernes’ head (Judith 13:3-8). Judith gave the head to her maid who put it in the bag which had formerly contained their food, left as if they were going to pray, and returned to Bethulia (Judith 13:9-10). She proclaimed the great work which had been accomplished and all gave God the glory and prayed to Him (Judith 13:11-20).

Judith then commanded the Israelites to prepare as if they would give battle in the morning and to place Holofernes’ head on the wall of the city, but only after Achior was able to see it and confirm it belonged to Holofernes; afterward Achior believed in God, submitted to circumcision, and joined the house of Israel (Judith 14:1-10). The Israelites followed Judith’s plan: they prepared for battle, the Assyrians sought direction from Holofernes, who they learned was dead, causing confusion and panic; the Assyrians fled, and the Israelites of Bethulia not only themselves gave them fast pursuit, but sent messages to Betomasthaim, Choba, and Kola, and their men also rushed out for battle; the enemy was cut down, and the Assyrian camp was plundered by the Israelites (Judith 14:11-15:7).

The high priest in Jerusalem and all the people came to praise and honor Judith; she was given the plunder of Holofernes’ tent (Judith 15:8-11). Judith led the women of Israel out in a dance with a song prepared for her, praising God and commending Judith, very much akin to the Song of Deborah in Judges 5:1-31 (Judith 15:12-16:17). Upon arriving at Jerusalem, all the Israelites purified themselves, and Judith dedicated the items from Holofernes’ tent to God (Judith 16:18-19). After feasting for three months, everyone returned to their homes; Judith returned to Bethulia and lived out her days with great notoriety yet deciding to remain a widow despite many offers of marriage (Judith 16:20-22). The author reported Judith manumitted her servant, divided her property among her descendants, and died at 105, and was well mourned and honored in death (Judith 16:23-25).

As we have seen, it remains impossible to reconcile the story of Judith to any particular historical narrative: a Jewish person of the Second Temple Period has created this story. But to what end? Many Biblical themes emerge: the haughtiness of the pagan oppressor; the pastiche of all the pagan oppressors which afflicted Israel, with Assyria, Babylon, and Persia all represented; a “woman of valor,” the embodiment of Proverbs 31:10-31, rose up and becomes the catalyst for victory, very much evoking Ehud, Deborah, and Jael with her killing the general with a sword, summoning Israel out to defeat an oppressor put to flight, and singing a song celebrating the victory (Judges 3:12-5:31).

What is most likely going on implicitly in the book of Judith was made explicit in those later medieval Hebrew manuscripts of the text: the insertion of the name of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the time of the Maccabean revolt of 167 BCE. “Judith,” after all, is the feminine form of “Judah” in Hebrew (“praised” or “Jewess”). Antiochus IV Epiphanes might have been a Macedonian by origin, but by the second century BCE his empire was seen as Syrian. And so we have a story involving an aggressive (As)syrian king attempting to extirpate the people of God, and how an improbable revolt led by an improbable pious person of God led to victory over the (As)syrian king and his forces and independence for the people of God.

The book of Judith, therefore, is best understood as a Hellenistic novel, most likely written in the wake of the Maccabean revolt, celebrating what the Maccabeans were able to accomplish with a historical novel imagining a strong Israelite woman taking on the role of Deborah and Jael against the (even by then) ancient oppressors of Israel and gaining the victory through God’s providence. “Judith” might have been a Simeonite by descent, but she can become the embodiment and representative of pious Israel finding ways to defeat the pagan oppressor who would try to eliminate them.

We can thus understand why plenty of believers have taken great encouragement from the book of Judith and have been greatly impressed by Judith’s character. Roman Catholic attempts to suggest an actual Assyrian context in the days of Manasseh king of Judah in the late medieval and early modern world betray their discomfort with the implications of the decisions of the Council of Trent regarding the inspiration of the Apocrypha and help conspire to obfuscate the point. The goal was never to present or suggest Judith really existed or this story actually happened; arguments about inspiration remain late and misbegotten. Instead, we do better by appreciating the book of Judith for what it has always been: a historically confused but compellingly presented historical novel in which Israel got the victory through a pious woman, somewhat retrojecting the success of the Maccabean revolt onto the past. It is a great way of encouraging one another about the prospect of the pious and righteous finding success and victory by means of their piety and shrewdness; the forces of oppression need not always win. May we appreciate the book of Judith for what it was, is, and always will be, and find encouragement to serve God faithfully in Christ through the Spirit, and obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Judith appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Second Passover

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.

In Numbers 1:1-10:10, Moses set forth the preparations necessary for Israel to travel. The Israelites and the Levites were numbered and organized (Numbers 1:1-4:49). Commandments had been given regarding purity and dedication to YHWH (Numbers 5:1-6:27). Gifts had been offered for the use in the Tabernacle, and the Levites were all consecrated and purified for their service (Numbers 7:1-8:26). Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites had proven obedient to all which YHWH had commanded them.

It was now the first month of the second year since YHWH delivered the Israelites out of Egypt; YHWH thus spoke to Moses, reminding the Israelites to observe the Passover on the fourteenth day of that month along with all of its appropriate customs (Numbers 9:1-3). Moses thus commanded Israel, and Israel observed the Passover faithfully (Numbers 9:4-5).

The Israelites had reached Mount Sinai exactly three months after departing Egypt according to Exodus 19:1; therefore, Israel’s sojourn at Mount Sinai lasted approximately nine months. Perhaps we should see a kind of birthing metaphor at work: what had been a mixed multitude had now become a nation, organized around the covenant and service of YHWH their God.

Some men had become ritually impure because they had come into contact with a dead body, and thus were not able to observe the Passover as decreed (Numbers 9:6-7). They asked Moses what they should do, and Moses inquired of YHWH (Numbers 9:8). In His response, YHWH made provision for those who might be ritually unclean or on a journey during the regular time of the Passover: they should observe the Passover on the fourteenth day of the second month (Numbers 9:9-11). YHWH specified they should not break the bones of the Passover lamb or leave any of it for the morning, and they should eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and then exhorted the Israelites to satisfy every aspect of the Passover observance, just a month later (Numbers 9:11-12). Above all YHWH wanted to emphasize the importance of observing the Passover: those who could observe but did not do so had sinned and should be cut off from the people, and resident foreigners who wish to observe the Passover should be encouraged to do so, and they would be expected to observe it in the exact same way as native Israelites (Numbers 9:13-14).

From this case law experience we can understand just how important and significant God intended the Passover observance to remain among the Israelites. For no other observance do we see a similar precedent and expectation of observation a month later if one is unclean or traveling. Yet no other observance was like the Passover in commemorating YHWH’s deliverance of Israel from Egyptian slavery. Not for nothing did YHWH begin His giving of the Law by identifying Himself as YHWH who delivered them from Egypt (Exodus 20:2): such was God’s great act of salvation, His demonstration of covenant loyalty, and the basis on which God expected Israel to remain faithful to the covenant which He had made with them. But Israel did not faithfully observe the Passover; its observance in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah are notable, and the Chronicler confessed the Passover had not been appropriately observed in the days of the kings (2 Chronicles 30:5, 35:18). Whether Israel’s lack of faithfulness to YHWH in the days of the kings was caused by or a symptom of the lack of appropriate Passover observance cannot be fully ascertained.

We also do well to note how John specifically quoted Numbers 9:12 in John 19:36 in reference to Jesus’ legs not being broken, fully identifying Jesus with the Passover lamb. As God delivered Israel from Egyptian slavery during the Passover, so Jesus delivered all mankind from enslavement to sin and death as our Passover lamb (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7).

Moses then provided greater detail regarding the cloud of the Presence of YHWH in Numbers 9:15-23. The basic story had already been set forth in Exodus 40:34-38: the cloud would be on the Tabernacle during the day, and fire at night; if the cloud was lifted up, Israel would travel. Moses reiterated these matters and emphasized how the Israelites would travel according to the commandment of YHWH: they would not go anywhere if the cloud remained over the Tabernacle, whether for one or many days; they would travel, either day or night, when the cloud was taken up. Moses frequently highlighted Israel’s obedience in these matters: they meticulously observed the cloud and moved, or did not move, according to YHWH’s manifested commands and will (Numbers 9:18-20, 23).

YHWH then commanded Moses to make trumpets of silver and made provision for their use in Numbers 10:1-10. Two trumpets should be made to assemble the Israelites and make provision for travel (Numbers 10:2). If one trumpet would blow, the leaders should assemble before Moses; if both blew, all Israel should thus assemble (Numbers 10:3-4, 7). Blowing one alarm would signal the eastern camp to travel; two alarms, the southern camp (Numbers 10:5-6). The sons of Aaron would be the ones responsible for blowing the trumpets (Numbers 10:8). YHWH also made provision for the use of trumpets once Israel entered their land: they should sound the alarm with trumpets when fighting their enemies so they would be remembered before YHWH and be delivered, and they should blow the trumpets with joy during their appointed festivals and at the beginning of each month over their offerings as part of their memorial before God (Numbers 10:9-10).

In describing the cloud of the Presence and the trumpets, Moses prepared the reader for the resumption of the journey through the wilderness beginning in Numbers 10:11. The formulaic date of Numbers 10:11 strongly parallels Exodus 19:1, forming an inclusio of Israel’s Sinai experience. The cloud would lift; the trumpets would sound; Israel would again be on the march.

Moses thus concluded his description of Israel’s sojourn at Mount Horeb/Sinai and his detailing of the preparations made for the Israelites in resuming their journey. The Sinai experience overall featured moments of great relational connection with YHWH, the reception of the covenant and the tablets of the Ten Commandments, the building and consecration of the Tabernacle, and the dedication of the Levites for YHWH’s service; but also devastating moments of rebellion with long-term consequences, as in the incident of the golden calf. Nevertheless, Israel has proven conspicuously faithful and obedient to YHWH’s commands and provisions throughout Numbers 1:1-10:11. At this moment, Israel is prepared to confidently journey forth from Horeb/Sinai toward Canaan, organized for war, seemingly ready to observe YHWH’s commandments and enter the Promised Land.

We are aware of the disobedience and rebellion to come and its devastating consequences for that generation of Israelites, and Moses will narrate that experience soon enough. Yet it is not the fault of YHWH who had well provided for Israel and had made appropriate and sufficient preparations, as Numbers 1:1-10:11 attested. We do well to learn from Israel’s example and seek to faithfully glorify and honor God in Christ through the Spirit so we might obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Second Passover appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Dragon, the Beasts, and the Lamb

Revelation 11:13-18 would seem to make a perfect ending for John’s vision: the Judgment has been accomplished, and God reigns over all. Nevertheless, John continues to see many fantastic images, even more puzzling and bizarre than before!

He now sees a woman about to give birth and a dragon prepared to consume the child when it is born (Revelation 12:1-4). The child is born and taken up into heaven to his throne; the woman flees to the wilderness and is nourished there (Revelation 12:5-6). Then there is war in heaven between the dragon and Michael and his fellow angels: the dragon is defeated, and cast down to the earth, and warnings are given about his wrath (Revelation 12:7-12). The dragon then pursues the woman from before but is continually frustrated in his endeavor to vanquish her (Revelation 12:13-17).

In great wrath, the dragon stands by the shore of the sea while a beast comes forth: it has ten horns, seven heads, and seven diadems, with one of its heads appearing to have been slain but was now healed, and it is described in terms of a lion, bear, and leopard (Revelation 13:1-3). The dragon gives his authority to the beast, and the beast speaks blasphemy and makes war on the saints and overcomes them (Revelation 13:4, 6-7). Another beast comes forth from the ground: it has the appearance of a lamb but speaks as a dragon, and it is given authority by the first beast to cause all to worship the beast, deceiving with signs from heaven and a marvelous image (Revelation 13:11-15). The people of the earth do in turn worship him, and they maintain its mark so they can buy and sell (Revelation 13:5, 16-17). The beast has the number of a man: 666 (Revelation 13:18).

Yet John then sees the Lamb on Mount Zion with the 144,000 who bear His name, the ones who remained as virgins and who follow the Lamb wherever He goes (Revelation 14:1, 4-5). John hears the thunderous sound of harpers singing the new song before the throne of God (Revelation 14:2-3). An angel then “gospels the Gospel,” proclaiming good news to all mankind: God’s hour of judgment had come, and all should fear Him and worship Him their Creator (Revelation 14:6-7). Another angel proclaims the downfall of Babylon; a third angel warns those who have obtained the mark of the beast of the eternal condemnation which awaits (Revelation 14:8-11). John then sees the One like a son of man on a cloud, and an angel from the temple exhorts Him to reap the earth with a sharp sickle, and He does so (Revelation 14:14-16). Another angel then comes forth from the heavenly temple with a sharp sickle and with it gathered the grape clusters of earth into the winepress of the wrath of God which is then trodden outside of the city, with extraordinary amounts of blood pouring forth (Revelation 14:17-20).

This story seems to come out of nowhere and may disorient the reader, but John provides plenty of contextual hints and descriptions which allow us to understand the picture he sees. The woman is arrayed with sun, moon, and stars, consistent with a picture of Israel from Genesis 37:9-11, yet continues to exist and look to God for sustenance after the birth of the Child, which is more consistent with the church (cf. Revelation 12:13, 16-17): therefore, the woman likely represents the collective people of God throughout time. The Child, described as One who rules with a rod of iron, is the Christ, based on Psalm 2:9 and Revelation 2:27. The dragon is also called the serpent, the Devil, and Satan (Revelation 12:9), consistent with Satan as God’s adversary as a serpent or a monster in Genesis 3:1-15 and Isaiah 51:9. The first beast is described as a hybrid of the beasts Daniel sees coming out of the water in Daniel 7:3-8; in that context, they represent the successive empires of Babylon, Persia, and Macedonia. As one who blasphemes God and makes war on His saints, the beast represents the ultimate earthly power arrogating itself against God; at that time, Rome (cf. Revelation 13:1, 6-7). It has what seems to be a death wound that healed (Revelation 13:4): Rome had looked quite fragile and perhaps on the verge of collapse in the year of the four emperors in 69 CE, but Vespasian re-established its power. Some associate “666” with Nero; he was quite the godless tyrant, persecuting the people of God, and there was some concern that he either had not really died or had been brought back to life: Nero redivivus, either as himself or in the form of another (e.g., Domitian). The second beast imitates God and the Lamb: he attempts to look like the lamb and does signs that in previous days validated people’s belief in God, yet now does so to serve the beast (Revelation 13:11-15; cf. Numbers 16:35, 1 Kings 18:20-40, 2 Kings 1:10-14): as such, he represents the civil religion which encourages and promotes the earthly power arrogating against God.

John thus describes the forces arrayed against the people of God: the earthly power and its religion empowered by the Evil One. For a time they are given the power to persecute and even overcome the saints. The rest of the world honors and worships at the feet of that earthly power. We can easily understand how this situation would lead many of God’s people to despair.

Nevertheless, the Evil One is not acting from a position of power: instead, he has already been defeated! He has been cast down from heaven, and his time on earth is short (Revelation 12:9-12). The “Gospel” is “gospeled” (Revelation 14:6-7); these are the first and only times John talks of the “Gospel” as such, and they come at a crucial moment. God is the Creator and thus Controller of all things; the Lamb has gained the victory in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. God’s judgment of condemnation and wrath comes quickly upon “Babylon,” an image which will feature quite prominently in future chapters, and upon all those who have accepted the mark of the beast, the sign of the one given power over the people. The earth is then fully harvested, both grain and grapes; atonement comes to those who belong to God, and condemnation to the full for those who have turned away from Him. The conclusion is fixed and certain; the time will be short.

John does not sugarcoat reality for those to whom he writes: some will go to into captivity, and some will be killed (Revelation 13:10). Yet this is the “faith and patience” of those who follow God: if they put their trust in the blood of the Lamb and proclaim the word of their testimony, they will overcome the Evil One (Revelation 12:9). Through the earthly powers Satan persecutes those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus, yet if they endure, even to death, they receive the blessing of God, rest from their labors, and their works follow after them (cf. Revelation 12:17, 14:12-13).

For generations many have speculated regarding the identity of the beast, his mark, and his number. Such speculations tend to tell more about the speculators than anything about what John saw. Likewise, this section of Revelation proves especially terrifying and disturbing for many readers. Nevertheless, Revelation 12:1-14:20 proves critical to the vision which John sees: it explains why even though God and the Lamb rule in the heavens, things do not seem to be going so well on the earth. The Evil One has been given a rather long leash on the earth and uses the powers of empire and religion to deceive the many and persecute the saints. Yet God gives us hope that it will not always be so! In such an environment, we do well to heed the good news of the angel: fear God who is our Creator and worship Him (Revelation 14:7). Learning about the dragon and the beasts should not cause us to waver or fear, for they have already been defeated by Christ, and we can gain the victory over them through Christ as well. Let us maintain faith and patience and glorify God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Dragon, the Beasts, and the Lamb appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Argument From Silence

What should we make of silence in historical or religious matters?

Arguments from silence (Latin argumentum ex silentio) are made in various disciplines and fields; for our purposes we will focus on arguments from silence made in terms of history or religion, and especially where history and religion intersect.

In terms of history, arguments from silence are advanced to ask why a given author, document, or place fell silent regarding a given matter. The best in historical inquiry rightly focuses on what can be positively known and demonstrated through substantive evidence: what an author says, or what concrete archaeological evidence can support. Historical arguments from silence approach subjects from the opposite direction, seeking to explore why a given idea or matter was not discussed by authors or in documents, or which prove noticeably absent from the archeological data.

In religion, arguments from silence are advanced to ask why we find very little or no mention of a given matter from religious spokespeople and/or in religious documents. As with history, so with religion: the best aspects of inquiry focus on what was explicitly discussed and for which substantive evidence can be set forth. Yet there might be times in which we can benefit from asking and considering why a given subject matter was not explicitly discussed or mentioned by religious spokespeople.

Arguments from silence are not inherently logically fallacious. The quality of arguments from silence proves dependent on the quality of the actual, substantive evidence surrounding the matter passed over in silence. Even then, an argument from silence can never be conclusive, since there may be some missing evidence or unknown extenuating factors which would well explain the silence. Arguments from silence often prove suggestive and provide opportunities for reflection and thought.

“People in the ancient Mediterranean world had no knowledge of North and South America” represents a decently robust historical argument from silence. We have many primary sources which intended to set forth the geography of the world as the ancients knew it (e.g. Strabo), and none of them mention anything resembling North or South America; we have abundant archaeological sites in the Mediterranean world, and nothing which originated from North or South America have been found there. This argument from silence has validity but can only be suggestive, not definitive or reckoned as proven: perhaps a Phoenician, Greek, or Roman ship was blown well off course and ultimately reached North or South America and somehow returned, but all evidence for it has been lost. Nevertheless, this possibility remains remote, and even if it happened, it did not leave any trace in the historical record, and so this argument from silence remains salient.

“The Israelite exodus from Egypt never happened because we have no Egyptian evidence for it” represents a far less robust historical argument from silence. While it is true no explicit evidence for any Israelite exodus has been discovered in Egypt, we cannot be so certain absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Even though Egypt comparatively presents an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence from antiquity, far, far more has been lost than we have discovered. The Egyptians would also have very little motivation to record any details about the Israelite exodus, and in fact every reason to want to diminish and suppress any evidence for those events which might have existed, since it proved to be a national embarrassment. While any corroborating evidence for the Israelite exodus would be welcome, the argument from silence in this case proves less suggestive.

“Musical instruments were not used in the assemblies of Christians in the New Testament, and in fact were assiduously avoided” represents a decently robust religious argument from silence. Assemblies of Christians were spoken of in many places in the New Testament; the topic of singing in the assembly is even addressed (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:1-26); and at no point did any Apostle mention or indicate the presence of any instrument. Psalms, which would have featured instrumental accompaniment in the Temple services of the First and Second Temples, were sung, with the instrument being “plucked” identified as the heart (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Patristic sources provide explicit testimony to the intentional lack of musical instruments in their assemblies (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.4; Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.24.13; Novatian, On the Public Shows 7, Nicetas of Remesiana, On the Benefit of Psalmody 9). All of this evidence strongly suggests musical instruments were not used in early Christian assemblies, a premise which remains commonly confessed even by many in “Christendom” who presently use musical instruments in their assemblies.

“Jesus never talked about same sex sexual behavior” represents a much more tendentious and far less robust religious argument from silence. Jesus did not explicitly address or speak of same sex sexual behavior in any of the four Gospel accounts. But what conclusions should we draw from that information? Many would suggest Jesus was therefore not against same sex sexual behavior, or it did not really bother Him. Yet would this be the appropriate conclusion? By common confession, same sex sexual behavior was almost universally condemned in Second Temple Jewish culture; those who would have held firmly to the customs of Moses, including Jesus (cf. Matthew 5:17-20, would have uncritically accepted and affirmed Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, thus considering same sex sexual behavior as “detestable.” Leviticus 18:22 was one part of a greater set of sexual behaviors which were condemned in Leviticus 18:1-22; in Mark 7:21-23, Jesus spoke of the behaviors which come out of a person which defile them, and among them He included porneia, or sexually deviant behavior, which He and the Jewish people who heard Him would understand included all of the kinds of sexual behaviors described in Leviticus 18:1-22, including, but not limited to, same sex sexual behavior. That Jesus did not explicitly speak of same sex sexual behavior in any of the four Gospels might be suggestive of Jesus never having a reason to specifically address that kind of behavior; nevertheless, as it remains just as true that “Jesus never talked about incest” and “Jesus never talked about bestiality,” Jesus’ not explicitly speaking of same sex sexual behavior by no means suggests Jesus would not condemn that behavior; the evidence which does exist from the context of Second Temple Judaism and that which Jesus did explicitly address would suggest the contrary.

As we can see from the examples given above, the integrity and quality of arguments from silence have very little to do with the matter passed over in silence and much more to do with the information we do have and can know. On its own, silence means nothing: silence can neither inherently authorize or condemn, justify or refute; it is simply silence, a lack of attestation. The lack of attestation may be held in sharp relief of that which maintains significant attestation. Unfortunately, far too often, the lack of attestation provides people with opportunities to expose who they are and what kind of ideas and practices they would like to advance or supplant.

Yet all of this can only be exposed in light of the argumentation provided about what the silence might mean. We do best, therefore, when we make good and wise arguments based on the evidence which does exist. There will be times in which we should highlight how a given matter is passed over in silence, and consider and discuss why that might be the case. Sometimes a matter was passed over in silence because people did not know about it or practice it. At other times, the matter was not considered of enough significance to explicitly mention it or call it out; the reasons behind this kind of decision might be legion. We must maintain appropriate humility since we are removed from the original context in these matters, and we cannot possibly fully know or understand what people in the past were thinking or what motivated them.

But sometimes arguments from silence tell far more about those who would make those arguments than about the people or subject matter itself. Those making the arguments have their own perspectives and agendas, and sometimes their arguments will betray less than honorable motivations. But there will be other times in which arguments from silence might be made in good faith yet ultimately prove incorrect, based on incomplete or insufficient evidence. Absence of evidence does not inherently mean evidence of absence.

We do not have all evidence and all insight in matters of history or religion; therefore, there will be times in which arguments from silence will prove necessary. We do well to properly manage the evidence we do have and to humbly recognize the inherent limitations to arguments from silence. We should critically examine both the evidence and the presumptions and presuppositions involved in these arguments from silence. May we seek to glorify God in Christ in all things, and in Him obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Argument From Silence appeared first on de Verbo vitae.