Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 8

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.

Gifts and Purification

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). Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites had proven obedient to all which YHWH had commanded them.

Moses had previously consecrated and dedicated the Tabernacle and all of its furnishings (Exodus 30:23-31); in Numbers 7:1-89, Moses set forth the gifts of the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel, as their portion in the work of dedicating the Tabernacle of Israel and to make it their own.

The leaders brought their gifts on carts carried by oxen; the carts and oxen were given to the Levitical clans of the Gershonites and Merarites so they could use them to carry the materials of their service; the Kohathites received none since they were called upon to manually carry their burdens (Numbers 7:3-9).

Moses listed out in exact detail each leader from each tribe and what was given: each gave a silver platter and bowl full of flour mixed with olive oil, a gold pan full of incense, a bull, a ram, a lamb for burnt offerings, a goat for a purification offering, and two bulls, five rams, five goats, and five lambs for peace offerings (Numbers 7:12-83).

Why would Moses provide such an exact listing and repeat himself 12 times? The way the text has been presented emphasizes the equality of the tribes. Each tribe’s leader brings their offering, and each is listed in its fullness. None of the twelve are any closer to the Tabernacle than any other; none brings anything more or less than any other tribe. They each have the same share in YHWH and the Tabernacle. Thus the presentation of the leaders’ gifts seeks to demonstrate the equality of standing of the tribes of Israel before YHWH and His Tabernacle.

Thus all Israel by proxy participated in the dedication of the Tabernacle (Numbers 7:84-88). Moses would go into the Tent of Meeting to speak with YHWH, and he would hear the voice of YHWH speaking above the mercy seat between the cherubim (Numbers 7:89).

As Moses would enter the Most Holy Place to hear the Word of YHWH, the ministration of the Tabernacle would fall upon Aaron, his sons, and the Levites. Aaron and his sons had been consecrated in Leviticus 8:1-9:24; the time had now come to officially consecrate and dedicate the Levites for their service.

YHWH first made provision for the lampstand and its seven lamps, the menorah (Numbers 8:1-4). Then YHWH commanded Moses to separate out the Levites from Israel to purify them: they were to have purification water sprinkled on them, be completely shaven, and wash their clothes (Numbers 8:5-8). The Levites would be brought before YHWH: all Israel was to lay their hands on the Levites, and Aaron was to offer the Levites as a wave offering before YHWH (Numbers 8:9-11). How “all” Israel would lay hands on the Levites, or how Aaron would offer the Levites as a wave offering, was left unrevealed. The Levites were to lay their hands on the heads of the bulls of the grain and purification offerings to make atonement for them (Numbers 8:12).

YHWH again explained the reasoning behind the dedication of the Levites: they were chosen instead of the firstborn of every Israelite and so no plague would come upon the Israelites for improperly approaching the sanctuary of YHWH (Numbers 8:16-19; cf. Exodus 13:1-2, Numbers 3:12-13).

In this way the Levites were formally and officially separated out from among the twelve tribes of Israel and dedicated to the service of YHWH at the Tabernacle (Numbers 8:13-16, 20-22).

YHWH again set forth the career of the Levites: the Levite men would join the company of the work at the tent of meeting at twenty-five but must retire by fifty; after fifty they could assist in the tent of meeting and attend to various needs but not otherwise do the work (Numbers 8:23-26).

This exhortation stands at variance with what YHWH expected from Moses in the census of the three clans of the Levites in Numbers 4:1-49, in which the Levite men from thirty to fifty were counted. Why the change from thirty in Numbers 4:1-49 to twenty-five in Numbers 8:24? Some manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint seem to “correct” the text in Numbers 8:24 to read “thirty” as in Numbers 4:1-49, so manifestly some have concluded the Numbers 8:24 number to be a corruption. Some conclude we are witnessing divergent traditions about when Levites should begin working. A canonically more consistent but creative explanation would be progressive: perhaps there were not enough men from thirty to fifty to well serve in the Tabernacle, and so the age of service was expanded by five years between Numbers 4:1-49 and Numbers 8:24 so there would be a sufficient number of workers.

By the end of Numbers 8:26, Israel had been counted for military service and stationed around the Levites and the Tabernacle. The Levites had been counted, organized, and dedicated for service to YHWH. The people had dedicated their gifts for the Tabernacle of YHWH. Throughout it all, Aaron, Moses, and the Israelites had proven completely and entirely faithful to every command and dictate given by YHWH. May we learn from the example of Israel and seek to glorify and honor God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Gifts and Purification appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Begging the Question

Making full arguments can be hard. It is always easier if you can assume the argument and convince others you have proven yourself. Such does not make it right.

In any kind of argument or discussion, an attempt to presume the truth of the conclusion within the structure of the argument or discussion represents the logical fallacy which we have come to call begging the question. It has received this name on account of the way Aristotle originally described it in his Topics: Aristotle spoke of “asking for the initial thing” as a banal and fairly uncreative way of managing within a dialectical formal debate conversation. In those conversations, there would be the “initial thing,” the thesis under discussion, and then respondents would ask yes or no questions against in an attempt to challenge the validity or consistency of the thesis. In that kind of conversation, to ask, or thus to beg for, the question itself would not prove very productive in any kind of argumentation. The Latin name for the fallacy, petitio principii, is a more or less direct translation of Aristotle’s original concern, “asking for the beginning/starting point,” and has since been understood as meaning “assuming the premise.” “Begging the question” would be more properly petitio quaesiti in Latin.

While the original Aristotelian concern would involve a questioner in the discourse, today the fallacy of begging the question tends to come from the person who would be advancing or making the argument in the discussion. Begging the question falls under the greater category of circular reasoning, which is what makes it fallacious: by assuming the proof, no actual proof is adduced or presented, and the statement or thesis simply remains an assertion.

Much of what is called “begging the question” in modern rhetorical discourse is not, strictly, “begging the question.” “Begging the question” seems to have become the catch-all phrase to point out a host of potential fallacies: dodging a question, raising the question, inviting the question, or suggesting the question. Many use it to speak of a question being left unanswered. Many have confused “begging the question” with “calling the question,” the latter of which represents a parliamentary procedure which would compel the end of discussion and voting on a motion. If someone has intentionally avoided and neglected a question or concern in an argument, they have dodged the question or left the question unanswered. If an argument in a discourse generates a new concern or interest, then it has raised, invited, or suggested the question. None of these are “begging the question,” in which someone advancing the argument has asserted their conclusion as part of their proof.

One way begging the question might take place involves a simple re-statement of a claim. Ironic examples of these can be found throughout the dictionary in those circumstances in which a word’s definition is often a re-stated form of the word, as when a nominal form of a word is described as the “state” or “condition” of its verbal form. More complicated forms of this fallacy might involve using the definition of a term as part of the evidence for a claim, as if the definition could really advance the argument. At many other times, begging the question takes place as a part of a larger effort of circular reasoning.

Begging the question quite frequently takes place in contexts and situations in which the one advancing the argument wants to rely upon the expectation the audience will understand the claim as self-evident or so consistent with common sense or common reasoning as to not require any kind of real substantive proof. If this expectation does not already exist, the one advancing the argument might well be attempting to thus suggest it, perhaps obscured by some rhetorical panache.

To this end a lot of political discourse features begging the question: politicians will frequently make all kinds of claims and repeat them endlessly as if they were self-evidently true, or as if “we all know” this is the way things are, when in fact the claim remains quite deficient in terms of evidence and poorly reflects the reality of our time and place. Those who believe the politician well advances their ideas and represents their way of looking at things will tend to uncritically agree. Those who prove critical of the politician might try to refute the claim(s) with evidence or attempt to make some other kind of rhetorical appeal, but most often for naught. There seems to be very little accountability in our current political discourse, and so politicians freely use circular reasoning and beg the question constantly without suffering any real consequences for doing so.

Religious discourse is not immune from begging the question; if anything, religious discourse ends up awash in circular reasoning in which the conclusions are asserted as part of the proof. You will rarely find anyone begging the question in matters regarding which abundant evidence can be found: whether the Apostles believed Jesus was the Christ based in what has been revealed in the New Testament, for example. We do not need to beg the question regarding whether baptism was the normative response in faith upon hearing the Gospel in the New Testament; we can point to many examples to demonstrate the truth of the proposition (e.g. Acts 2:1-41, 10:1-57, 16:31-33, etc.). Instead, the question will more likely be begged regarding those claims and propositions for which explicit evidence is lacking in the New Testament or other spiritual resources, or possibly as a result of someone having taken the truth of those claims or propositions for granted. One unfortunate example might involve the Bible as the Word of God: many will attempt to argue, with perhaps a little more rhetorical flourish, how the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible is the Word of God. A more full and complete argument would involve understanding how Jesus and the Apostles reckoned the words of Scripture as the written witness of what God had communicated to the prophets and in Jesus by means of the Apostles, involving Hebrews 1:3, Matthew 18:18, 2 Peter 1:19-21, and other passages.

As Christians, we do well to make sure we avoid begging the question as we seek to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will be most tempted to beg the question in those circumstances in which there is not as much explicit Biblical evidence as we would like, and all the more so in those aspects of our faith which we have accepted as self-evident or regarding which we have never considered any kind of reasoning for its truth. We do well to further study any argument or claim in which we might be tempted to beg the question. Sometimes that study should lead us to be able to make better and more effective arguments for the truth of the matter. Sometimes that study will lead us to maintain confidence in the truth of that claim, but as one to be asserted in humility with the recognition of proof as relatively lacking. But sometimes that study will lead us to recognize we accepted an argument or claim as true when it really did not best reflect the evidence available, and we can repent and make better, more accurate arguments and claims in ways which will glorify and honor God in Christ. May we avoid begging the question and promote the Gospel of Christ to the best of our ability, and entrust ourselves fully to God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Begging the Question (accessed 2024/22/07).

The post Begging the Question appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Nazirite and the Blessing

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; while we may find such information tedious, we have records of Egyptian rulers chronicling their preparations and logistics for major campaigns. Such suggests many ancient people took pride in detailing all which proved necessary to accomplish their great deeds. YHWH had commanded Moses and Aaron to take a military census of the Israelites and to organize the camp by tribe in Numbers 1:1-2:34 and then to take a count of the Levite men and assign their forms of service in Numbers 3:1-4:49. Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites had proven obedient to all which YHWH had commanded them.

In the middle of describing such events, YHWH gave commandments to Moses regarding matters of purity and wholeness among the Israelites in Numbers 5:1-31, the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6:1-21, and the Aaronic High Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6:22-27.

YHWH set forth the provisions for the nazir, the “Nazirite” (Numbers 6:1-21). The term derives from the word for “remaining aloof,” or perhaps “set apart”; it can also refer to an untrimmed vine, perhaps an association with the abstinence from grape products and maintenance of untrimmed hair which were the primary signs of the Nazirite (Numbers 6:3, 5).

Any Israelite, male or female, could make the determination to become a Nazirite for a specified amount of time: they would take the Nazirite vow to dedicate themselves to YHWH (Numbers 6:1-2). During the time of their Nazirite vow, they were to separate themselves from any products from grapes: wine, shekar, grapes, or raisins (Numbers 6:3-4). Shekar has been generically translated as “strong drink” in English for centuries; the related term in Akkadian refers to beer, and Numbers 6:2-3 would represent the strongest argument against understanding shekar as “beer” in Hebrew since association is made with the grape, although we have evidence from Egypt of beer being sweetened with wine, and such may explain the association. Some translate shekar in Numbers 6:2 as “vinegar”; some are willing to go as far as translating it as “brandy,” but evidence for distillation in the ancient Near East is lacking.

Israelites who have taken the Nazirite vow upon themselves were also to allow their hair to grow long and thus be holy before YHWH (Numbers 6:5). They must not come into contact with any dead body during their time under the Nazirite vow, even a close relative since he or she is separated out as holy before YHWH (Numbers 6:6-8). Provision was then made for the sacrifices necessary for an Israelite under a Nazirite vow who somehow became defiled by touching a dead body; he or she would have to rededicate themselves to YHWH under the Nazirite vow and would have to bring a trespass or reparation offering on account of having transgressed their vow of separation (Numbers 6:9-12).

YHWH then also made provision for the “law of the Nazirite,” the offerings and rituals necessary to bring the Nazirite vow to its completion (Numbers 6:13-20): a burnt offering, a purification or sin offering, and a peace offering, as well as grain and drink offerings, all presented by the priest before YHWH. At the tent of meeting the Nazirite would shave his head and the hair would be burnt on the offering with the peace offering. After the wave offering the Israelite under the Nazirite vow would be released and able to drink wine and otherwise participate in the life of the community.

The most (in)famous “Nazirite” of the Hebrew Bible was Samson, dedicated to YHWH from the womb (Judges 13:7); yet Samson’s story seems to feature the continual violation of the Nazirite vow, touching (and even eating from) the carcass of a lion, and eventually having his hair shorn (cf. Judges 14:8-9, 16:17-20). Hannah promised YHWH she would dedicate her firstborn son to Him and would never cut his hair (1 Samuel 1:11); for this reason Samuel seems to have also been a Nazirite.

In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel told Zechariah his son John would be filled with the Spirit in the womb and should not drink wine or “strong drink” (Luke 1:15); since Luke deliberately portrays John the Baptist as the kind of Samuel to Jesus as David, we should certainly understand John the Baptist as a Nazirite.

While these remain the most prominent examples of Israelites under the Nazirite vow, they would seem to be the exceptions to the rule, since they all seem to have been dedicated as Nazirites from the womb and remained under that vow throughout their lives. The examples of Israelites under a Nazirite vow for a specific period of time feature the Apostle Paul as related by Luke in Acts 18:18 and four otherwise unknown Jewish Christians of which Luke testified in Acts 21:23-24.

Rabbinic commentary on the Nazirite proved somewhat ambivalent. There was clearly some place for the Nazirite vow in Israel: it provided an opportunity for the regular Israelite to dedicate and sanctify themselves to YHWH, and it was the closest the average Israelite would come to being dedicated and sanctified to YHWH like the priests. The independently minded Westerner of the modern era can certainly appreciate the appeal and the option provided for the Israelites; the more communally minded rabbinic community often wondered why one would want to thus separate out from the community to be thus dedicated before YHWH. Provision for the Nazirite vow immediately followed provision for the sotah test of the jealous husband regarding his possibly unfaithful wife (cf. Numbers 5:11-31); the rabbis noted how a purification or sin offering was among the sacrifices required to relieve the Nazirite from his or her vow (cf. Numbers 6:14). Perhaps the rabbis were right in maintaining some temperance regarding over-exuberant enthusiasm for the Nazirite vow among the Israelites; maybe the reasons for dedicating oneself to YHWH as a Nazirite involved, for at least some Israelites, attempts at contrition, or re-affirmation or renewal of relationship with YHWH in a way which alienated them, to some degree for some period of time, from life of the community of the people of God.

YHWH then made provision for Aaron, the High Priest, to be able to bless the Israelites in Numbers 6:22-27. The High Priestly Blessing has since become iconic:

YHWH bless you and protect you;
YHWH make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you;
YHWH lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6:24-26).

In Hebrew the prayer nicely was built up upon itself, with the first line as three words, the second line with five words, and the third with seven words, and each line expands and intensifies the expected blessings. The overall message represents the request for YHWH to bless and sustain His people. God’s blessings and protection, to be kept by God, represents the primary desire of every believer in God (Numbers 6:24). From beginning to end of the witness of Scripture, to stand in the Presence of God represents the greatest honor, security, and strength; thus the request for God to make His face shine upon His people and lift His countenance upon them, with the expectation God would give gifts and peace to His people (Numbers 6:25-26).

We have ancient Near Eastern analogues requesting the blessings of the various gods of the nations upon their nations which sound quite similar to this prayer. We have discovered a silver scroll amulet at Ketef Hinnom featuring the words of the High Priestly Blessings dated to around 600 BCE; such represents the earliest witness to anything written in the Hebrew Bible. It is appropriate that this prayer would be the earliest attested message of the Scriptures.

What should Christians make of the Nazirite vow and the High Priestly Blessing? Both Jesus and James have warned us about vows, encouraging Christians to live in their integrity so their yes and no would prove sufficient (Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12). Yet we should certainly live our lives as dedicated to God and set apart for His purposes (cf. 1 Peter 1:13-16). The words of the High Priestly Blessing can still resonate for Christians; it is right and appropriate for Christians to bless one another by asking God to bless and protect them, to make His face to shine upon them and be gracious to them, and to lift His countenance upon them and give them peace. May we gain insight and edification from YHWH’s provisions for Israel, and faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Nazirite and the Blessing appeared first on de Verbo vitae.