Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 9

Jesus at Hanukkah

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). Most recently John the Evangelist 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).

In John 10:22-23, John the Evangelist abruptly transitioned to a new time context: it was the Feast of Dedication, in winter, and Jesus was walking in the Solomon’s Portico area of the Temple.

We generally speak of the Feast of Dedication as Hanukkah. Hanukkah commemorates the re-dedication of the Second Temple in the days of the Maccabees around 164 BCE. In 167 BCE the Macedonian Greek Seleucid ruler over Judea, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, issued a series of decrees against the practice of the customs of Moses in order to encourage the Jewish population to Hellenize. A pig was offered on the altar of YHWH in the Second Temple in order to desecrate it, and the Temple services were suspended for three years. These decrees and their enforcement spurred on the Jewish revolt headed by Judah the Maccabee which ultimately proved successful. Judah made provision for the cleansing of the Temple, the tearing down of the desecrated altar and the erection of a new one, and an eight-day observance beginning on the 25th day of Kislev. This eight-day observance was the original Feast of Dedication. It was also reported that the menorah only had enough oil for one day, and yet by God’s miraculous provision the oil endured for all eight days; to this end Hanukkah is also known as the Festival of Lights. Judah the Maccabee exhorted Israel to continually observe the Feast of Dedication/Lights afterward, and it has thus been observed ever since. This historical information was preserved in the apocryphal books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. The author of 1 Maccabees reported how the Maccabees set the desecrated altar aside until a prophet should arise and inform Israel what to do with it, and it was so until the author’s day, indicating the author did not number himself among the prophets. To this end we have no confidence in any claims of inspiration for 1 and 2 Maccabees but should maintain every confidence they generally preserve the historical record of events.

Thus Jesus went up to Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication. Jesus was walking in that very same Temple; Solomon’s Portico was a large colonnaded section of the Court of Women on the eastern side of the Temple, and of some size, since Peter and the early Christians would meet there according to Acts 5:12. The Hanukkah story, and even the matter of waiting for the prophet, should be kept in mind when considering what would soon take place.

Jesus was accosted by the Jewish authorities who declared an ultimatum: they wanted Him to clearly identify Himself as to whether He was, or was not, the Messiah (John 10:24). Jesus well perceived the lack of good faith in their ultimatum: He spoke of how He had already told them but they did not believe (John 10:25). They did not believe because they were not His sheep; those who were His sheep listen to Him and follow Him, and Jesus would give them eternal life, for His Father was greater than all, and none would snatch the sheep from His hand (John 10:26-29). In this way Jesus continued using the line of argument and thought expressed a couple of months earlier in His “Good Shepherd” discourse of John 10:1-22.

Jesus concluded by identifying Himself strongly with God, saying He and the Father were one (John 10:30). The Jewish leaders picked up stones to stone Him; He asked them for what good deed would they stone Him, and they responded it was because He blasphemed, associating Himself with God (John 10:31-33). The Jewish leaders correctly understood Jesus’ association; He used the language of the Shema of Deuteronomy 4:6, how YHWH God of Israel was one, to speak of the unity of the Father and the Son. Thus for a second time Jesus directly associated Himself with YHWH, and for a second time the Israelites were ready to stone Him (cf. John 8:31-59).

In response, Jesus made an argument on the basis of Psalm 82:6: if Asaph could speak of those to whom the Word of God came as “gods,” how could they condemn Jesus for blaspheming by declaring Himself the Son of God (John 10:34-36)?

Jesus’ argument proves challenging for many reasons. Jesus spoke of Psalm 82:6 as “in the law” of the Israelites, even though it is a psalm and thus part of the Ketuvim, or “Writings.” We can best understand Jesus as using “law” accommodatively to refer to all the revelation of God within the covenant between God and Israel. While Jesus’ argument remains quite comprehensible on its own terms, it remains difficult to reconcile it with any kind of contextual understanding of Asaph’s message.

Psalm 82:1-8, by common confession, remains an esoteric psalm, one which leads to more questions than it answers. The thrust of its exhortation can be easily discerned: the authorities whom God has placed over the order of things has proven craven and oppressive, and God chastised them in His heavenly council, demanding they execute justice and righteousness; they profess to be mighty beings, but they would die like humans and be greatly humbled. In this way Asaph asked God to execute judgment among the nations. But who are these “gods,” Elohim in Hebrew? Some translations basically add a new definition to the term for this passage and speak of them as “judges,” perhaps attempting to consider them as humans. Yet where else do we have any expectation of humans sitting in the heavenly council of YHWH? If they were human, dying like humans would be expected, not the dramatic reversal declared in Psalm 82:7. “Gods” remains the best translation, and we can perhaps make sense of them in terms of the “powers and principalities” of which Paul spoke in Ephesians 6:12. The witness of the Scriptures is ambivalent about the “gods” of the nations: some passages speak of them as if they did not really have any existence, but other passages speak of them as if they were demons or some other kind of spiritual power installed by God but often and easily corrupted. It is never wise to prove dogmatic about matters relating to the spiritual realm, for God has revealed just enough to let us know more is going on behind the scenes than we can imagine, but not nearly enough in order to be able to make much sense of it. True understanding is most likely beyond our understanding or quite unprofitable for us. We thus recognize the challenges presented by Asaph and Jesus regarding Psalm 82:1-8: more questions remain unanswered than answered, but we can understand the general thrust of the argument of each, and should recognize that neither Asaph nor Jesus is suggesting humans can become gods.

Jesus continued His response: He did not expect anyone to believe in Him if He did not do the deeds of His Father; even if they would not believe in Him, they should at least believe in those deeds, so that they might come to an understanding of how the Son and the Father share in perichoretic relational unity, mutual interpenetration without loss of distinctive identity (John 10:37-38). Through miraculous intervention Jesus again escaped their clutches, for His time had not yet come (John 10:39; cf. John 7:58-59).

John the Evangelist then related how Jesus left Jerusalem for the region immediately east of the Jordan River, the area in which John the Baptist was active (John 10:40). In contrast to Jesus’ experiences in Jerusalem, the people near the Jordan River confessed how John the Baptist had done no miraculous sign, but everything he had said about Jesus was true; many there thus believed in Jesus (John 10:41-42).

Israel celebrated the re-dedication of their Temple, and yet One greater than their Temple was present. The authorities, at least in theory, were waiting for prophetic insight about what they should do; yet they rejected Jesus the Prophet because they reckoned His claims about His relationship with God to be blasphemous. In a few years all of the Temple would become as that desecrated altar, torn down never to be rebuilt again. Yet Jesus was vindicated as the Son of God in His death and resurrection, and thus we all do well to humbly submit to Him and live as His sheep. May we find life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Jesus at Hanukkah appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Ad Hominem

According to the adage associated with Eleanor Roosevelt, “great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

While we may look askance at such a thought because of its elitism, the premise certainly holds true when it comes to argumentation.

One of the most common logical fallacies committed in argumentation, debate, discourse, and writing is argumentum ad hominem, Latin for “argument to the person,” often shortened to ad hominem. Ad hominem fallacies take place whenever a person ceases to argue, discuss, or dispute regarding the issue(s) at hand, and instead attack, deride, insult, or slander their opponents with a view of discrediting them before others and thereby casting aspersions on their arguments or ideas.

ad hominem tends to serve as a penumbra for a constellation of more specific logical fallacies; one could also understand a host of fallacies as specific applications and forms of ad hominem arguments. Guilt by association and tu quoque are common forms of ad hominem logical fallacies, attempting either to malign a person and their ideas by associating them with someone or something deemed odious, or by making an irrelevant appeal to perceived moral hypocrisy.

A good number of situations in which we find and see examples of ad hominem fallacies involve abuse and circumstance. Abusive ad hominem would involve the classic understanding of the fallacy: speaking evil or ill of a person as opposed to directly addressing their argument. Such evil speaking might well be slanderous. Abusive ad hominem pollutes discourse and inhibits discussion, which all too often seems to be the point: attempting desperately to get away from the arguments and ideas at the moment and focus on anything else. Such is what the prophet Jeremiah endured: he was almost universally denounced for prophesying YHWH’s messages; since no one could really argue with the messages on their merits, they would deride, insult, and mock Jeremiah (cf. Jeremiah 20:8-10). Our modern American political discourse, more often than not, quickly falls into forms of abusive ad hominem.

Circumstantial ad hominem involves pigeonholing people based on perceived circumstances and situations, attempting to dismiss arguments or ideas because, it is believed, people in those given circumstances must by necessity come to such conclusions. Circumstantial ad hominem is also part of the “genetic fallacy” category, imagining an argument proves invalid on account of the one arguing for it. More often than not, when a person’s age, gender, or race is brought up in terms of an argument, the goal is a circumstantial ad hominem, attempting to dismiss the argument because the person is male or female, white or black, young or old. This kind of fallacy also depends upon stereotyping and some form of reductionism.

Ad hominem fallacies prove appealing because they often work: the discourse is poisoned, discussions devolve into name-slinging, and people are sufficiently distracted from the issue at hand. Many who profess Jesus would even attempt to justify committing ad hominem fallacies, making much of Elijah’s mockery of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27. Yet such appeals and desires tend to be motivated by less than godly and honorable motives, and seem derived from the demonic wisdom of this world (cf. James 3:13-18). Christians are called to not slander or speak evil of others (Titus 3:2, 1 Peter 3:1). Christians should not be known for abusive speech (Colossians 3:8). Nevertheless, Christians should expect to be the object of ad hominem fallacious arguments, but are not called upon to respond in kind (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16). Few testimonies to the truth of God in Christ prove more powerful than responding to ad hominem by continuing to address the specific arguments or ideas at hand. But if we prove anxious and fearful in our arguments and discussions and commit ad hominem fallacies, how could we possibly give grace or well honor and reflect Christ in how we thus speak (cf. Ephesians 4:29)?

This final concern reflects the limitations of understanding ad hominem arguments as logical fallacies. We address ad hominem logical fallacies because when we make reference to the person as a strawman or a deflection from the argument, God in Christ is not glorified. Yet not all appeals to people, their beliefs, morals, and conduct, thus prove fallacious.

We do not live in a disembodied world of abstractions; we live in a world made by our Creator by means of His Word which would take on flesh and dwell among us as Jesus of Nazareth (cf. John 1:1, 14). Therefore, it is not wise for us to entirely separate arguments and ideas from people and their conduct. There will be times when moral hypocrisy genuinely happens and it might be productive to point it out. Sometimes people do maintain ungodly and unhealthy associations, and contract guilt from so doing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:33, 2 John 1:6-10). And there will be times in which people’s experience will mean something in terms of an argument or an issue, and those who have not shared in that experience will struggle to come to a similar understanding of those matters.

Yet in these contexts appeals to a person’s behavior or their experience are not designed to deflect from the substance of the argument or discussion, but instead are marshaled as part of the substance of the argument or discussion in order to advance it.

The truth of God in Christ through the Spirit has never been demonstrated through reason alone; it has always featured the message of God proclaimed and embodied in practice, from Abraham through Moses and the prophets and most perfectly manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. The Apostles thus encouraged proclamation of the Gospel in word and deed (1 Peter 2:11-3:16); Jesus and the Apostles expected Christians to imitate their examples (John 13:1-15, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2:14). To this end the Gospel of Jesus Christ never requires us to commit ad hominem fallacies; insulting or deriding opponents may feel intellectually satisfying but represents the demonic wisdom of this world, not the peaceable wisdom which comes from above. Yet most of our words will fall in vain if our lives do not manifest their truth: why should anyone do what we say if we do not even do so? To this end we do well to avoid ad hominem logical fallacies but instead faithfully embody the Lord Jesus Christ in word and deed by means of the Spirit to the glory of God the Father!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Ad Hominem appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Levites and Their Service

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

The one tribe excepted from the military census was the Levites; YHWH commanded Moses to appoint the Levites over the service and transportation of the Tabernacle and its furnishings (Numbers 1:47-53). This charge would be taken up and described in detail in Numbers 3:1-4:49.

The genealogy and experience of Aaron and his children are detailed in Numbers 3:1-4. In Leviticus 8:1-9:24, Aaron and his four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar were consecrated to YHWH to serve as His high priests. Nadab and Abihu would die soon after when they offered unauthorized incense before YHWH (Leviticus 11:1-4); this event was mentioned again in Numbers 3:4 to explain why Aaron’s two younger sons will now be given positions of authority and responsibility.

For however long between the events of Leviticus 8:1-9:24 and Numbers 3:1, it would seem Aaron and his sons alone served before YHWH. In Numbers 3:5-4:49 YHWH charged Moses to bring the tribe of Levi and dedicate them to assisting Aaron and his sons in the service before YHWH: to help with the ministrations of the Tabernacle as well as its transport (Numbers 3:5-10).

Long beforehand, Levi had three sons: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Numbers 3:17). Each of these had their own sons, and from all of them would come the families of the Levites, and their roles in the service and transport of the Tabernacle would be determined by family (Numbers 3:18-20). YHWH commanded Moses to count every male over a month old among the Levites by these clans and families (Numbers 3:14-16); not for military purposes, as the census of Israel, but for dedication to serving YHWH in His Tabernacle.

The male Gershonites numbered 7,500 and would camp to the immediate west of the Tabernacle (Numbers 3:21-23). They would be responsible for the tent itself, the curtains, the courtyard around the altar, and their service (Numbers 3:24-26). The male Kohathites numbered 8,600 and would camp immediately south of the Tabernacle; they were responsible for the sanctuary and all its implements and their service (Numbers 3:27-31). Eleazar ben Aaron was responsible for the oversight of the Gershonites and Kohathites and their service (Numbers 3:32). The Merarites numbered 6,200 and would camp immediately to the north of the Tabernacle; they were responsible for the frames and pillars of the Tabernacle and their service (Numbers 3:33-37). Moses, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons would camp immediately to the east of the Tabernacle and maintained oversight over the whole system (Numbers 3:38). Moses and Aaron proved faithful to YHWH’s commands, and the number of Levites came out to 22,000 (Numbers 3:39).

In Exodus 13:1-2 YHWH had commanded Moses and the Israelites to reckon the firstborn male of the womb as dedicated to YHWH. Such a dedication would demand a sacrifice: the actual sacrifice of an animal, or dedication to YHWH’s service for male humans. In YHWH’s original desire, all Israel would have been holy and sanctified and able to serve before Him (Exodus 19:5-6); however, during the incident with the golden calf, only the Levites came to Moses as standing for YHWH (Exodus 32:26-29). Thus the Levites were consecrated before YHWH; and in Numbers 3:11-13, YHWH brought these matters together by declaring the Levites as being consecrated to YHWH as redemption for the firstborn males of all Israel. To this end YHWH commanded Moses to count the firstborn males of Israel; the total was 22,273 (Numbers 3:40-43). Such left 273 over; YHWH commanded Moses to obtain five shekels for each of them for redemption, for a total of 1,365 shekels given to Aaron and his sons for the service before YHWH, all as YHWH had commanded (Numbers 3:44-51).

YHWH then commissioned Moses and Aaron with a more specific census for each of the three clans of Levi of men between thirty and fifty who would be the ones in active service (Leviticus 4:1-49). YHWH would then describe the role of each clan in transporting the Tabernacle and its equipment. Aaron and his sons were charged with covering the Ark of the Testimony, the table of the Presence, the altar, and their implements, and to position the poles in place for their transport; it would then fall upon the Kohathites, numbering 2,750, to carry them (Numbers 4:1-16, 34-36). If any Kohathite watched the covering of the holy things or touched a holy thing itself, he would die (Numbers 4:15, 17-20). Eleazar was given oversight over all these matters as well as for the oil for lamplight, oil of anointing, incense, and the daily grain offering (Numbers 4:16). The Gershonites, numbering 2,630, would be responsible for carrying the curtains and coverings; Ithamar ben Aaron was to provide oversight over them (Numbers 4:21-28, 38-41). The Merarites, numbering 3,200, were responsible for all the poles and ropes and other supporting materials; Ithamar ben Aaron was to oversee them as well (Numbers 4:29-33, 42-44). Thus all the Levite men between thirty and fifty years old in active service numbered 8,580 (Numbers 4:45-48).

All things had thus been structured: Israel had been numbered for military service and organized for the march, and the Levites had been numbered and provisions had been made for the service, transport, and installation of the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:1-4:49). We do well to note how Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites had proven faithful to YHWH in all of these matters and were commended for that faithfulness (cf. Numbers 1:54, 2:34, 3:42, 51, 4:49). Israel would soon be on the march.

All seemed well and in order, and for the moment, it was. We know how it will all fall apart and yet put back together again. These preparations were detailed for us to understand how God organized His people and to what end, and their faithfulness in executing this organization. Organization and structure are not everything, nor are they even primary in terms of our faithfulness and service to God; nevertheless, they should exist as God intended so that we can most effectively work to His glory and honor according to the forms of organization He has set forth in Christ through the Spirit as put in place by His Apostles. May we honor God in our organizations and structures, and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Levites and Their Service appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Shepherd Who Gives Sight

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 has been relating narratives regarding Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (or Feast of Booths; Sukkot) in Jerusalem, featuring Jesus’ instruction and the thoughts and feelings of the crowds and Jewish authorities, ultimately leading up to a desire to stone Jesus for blasphemy (John 7:1-52, 8:12-59). For many textual critical and literary reasons, we have reason to believe the pericope adulterae, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, of John 7:53-8:11 was not originally written by John, let alone would have taken place at this point in the Gospel narrative. We therefore conclude John the Evangelist wrote a continuous narrative of events at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:1-52 and John 8:12-10:21.

While we have a tendency to disconnect the narratives of John 9:1-41 and John 10:1-21 from the events of John 7:1-52, 8:12-59, and even disconnect them from each other, John the Evangelist presented them as all part of one continuous literary unit. In John’s narration, Jesus has gone back and forth with the Jewish people and religious authorities in John 7:1-52, 8:12-30 and then spoke specifically to the Jewish people who believed in Him in John 8:31-59; having miraculously escaped those who would have executed Him, Jesus left the Temple area with His disciples, and walked by a man who had been born blind (John 9:1). Jesus’ disciples asked who had sinned, he or his parents, which led to his blindness; Jesus responded it was so that the acts of God might be revealed through him (John 9:2-3). The disciples reflect the standard prejudice and presumption regarding disability deriving from specific sins; we should not develop a theology of disability from either Jesus’ disciples or, for that matter, Jesus’ specific response in this particular circumstance.

Jesus re-affirmed how He was the Light of the world and needed to do the works of God while the day remained (John 9:4-5; cf. John 8:12). He then spat on the ground, made mud, put it on the blind man’s eyes, and told him to wash in the pool of Siloam; the blind man did so and was able to see (John 9:6-7). The people responded, wondering if he indeed was the man who was blind and had formerly begged; some recognized him as such, but others did not think so; he did not shrink away from confessing who he was and had been (John 9:8-9). They asked him about what happened and he relayed the story (John 9:10-12).

The people decided to bring the man to stand before the Pharisees since an astonishing miracle had taken place (John 9:13). John the Evangelist then informed us this healing took place on a Sabbath (John 9:14); many of the Pharisees thus considered Jesus’ making mud on the ground as work and thus deemed Him a transgressor of God’s law, entirely missing the miraculous on account of this detail, but some did experience the cognitive dissonance and wondered how a sinner could do something like this (John 9:15-16). They asked the formerly blind man what he thought; he confessed Jesus as a prophet (John 9:17).

The Pharisees refused to believe his testimony and summoned his parents; they affirmed him as their son and that he was blind, but said nothing about how he gained sight (John 9:18-21). John the Evangelist explained their reticence: the Pharisees had agreed to put out of the synagogue anyone who confessed Jesus as the Christ (John 9:22-23). To be put out of the synagogue meant to be alienated and isolated from the Jewish community, and it would not be as if the Gentiles would welcome them with open arms. Many commentators believe John is retrojecting the situation of his later community onto this event; we have no reason to believe the religious authorities would not have thus leveraged their power at the time.

The Pharisees brought the formerly blind man back in and chastised him: they knew Jesus was a sinner, and he should glorify God; they were Moses’ disciples, but he was a disciple of Jesus, and they do not know where He came from (John 9:24-25, 29). The formerly blind man stood against them sharply: God did not listen to sinners, but Jesus had done a miracle which had never before been done according to the witness of the Scriptures. If Jesus were not from God He could do nothing (John 9:26, 30-33). The Pharisees had no patience for such a rebuke: they denounced him as born entirely in his sins, and yet he would presume to teach them (John 9:34)? We will have reason in a moment to comment on the irony of this statement; sufficient for the moment is to recognize how the Pharisees have revealed who they are in their response.

The Pharisees cast the man out. Jesus found him and asked what he thought of the Son of Man (John 9:35). The man asked Jesus about who the Son of Man might be, and Jesus confessed Himself as the Son of Man (John 9:36-37). The formerly blind man confessed his belief and prostrated before Jesus; Jesus said He came into the world so the blind might see and those who see might become blind (John 9:38-39). The Pharisees, perceiving the challenge, asked Him if they were blind; He told them they would not be guilty of sin if they were blind, but because they presumed to see, their sin remained (John 9:40-41).

John the Evangelist laid the irony on thickly: the blind saw, but those who believed they saw proved blind. Those who were “born in sin” found forgiveness, but those who presumed themselves to be holy were in transgression. Appropriate critiques about making caricatures and strawmen out of the Pharisees are important and should be heeded; nevertheless, it is always a temptation of those with religious zeal to think too highly of their own righteousness and inappropriately prove sanctimonious toward those with less formal accreditation or standing.

We tend to end the story there, but John did not: in his narrative, Jesus immediately continued on by speaking of Himself parabolically as the Door of the sheepfold and the Good Shepherd of the sheep (John 10:1-21).

The world of shepherding and sheep would have been familiar to Jesus and to everyone in His audience. Sheep were important for their meat, milk, and wool; nevertheless, sheep are very dumb creatures. They require a lot of assistance, direction, maintenance, and protection. Shepherds would spend a lot of time with the sheep and would be dedicated to them. They would know their individual sheep. Sheep heed the specific voice and call of their shepherd; even when flocks are mixed, with a call or sound the sheep will appropriately separate out and follow their respective shepherds. Bears, lions, and wolves would find sheep an easy meal; other people might be tempted to steal sheep. Shepherds thus had to direct sheep to find appropriate pasturage and water, and would be kept in sheepfolds to provide some protection during the night. The shepherd would use the door (or gate) of the sheepfold; those who would come to rob and steal would try to enter another way.

Such was the story Jesus told about the sheep, the sheepfold, and the shepherd in John 10:1-18. The people would have understood the referents, but they did not understand what Jesus meant by it all (John 10:6). Jesus attempted to explain. He was the Door of the sheepfold, for the others who came and claimed to be the Messiah were really thieves and robbers, and the sheep, the people of God in Christ, did not listen to them. Those who go out through Jesus find salvation and “pasturage”; going after others leads to exploitation and oppression, but Jesus came to give abundant life. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the sheep, who would lay down His life for the sheep. Hired hands would abandon the sheep if it proved too costly; the wolves, or the false Messiahs or religious authorities, would then come in to devour the sheep, God’s people. Jesus had sheep in other sheepfolds He would gather to Himself. But He knew His sheep, and they knew Him; He would lay down His life for them, and take it back up again, according to the commandment of His Father (John 10:1-18).

Jesus was by no means the first person to speak of Israel and leadership in terms of sheep and shepherding. Moses and David had been shepherds when God called them to lead His people (Exodus 3:1-6, 1 Samuel 6:11-13). The prophets would denounce the nobility and prophets of Israel as shepherds devouring the flock; yet YHWH promised He would return and personally shepherd Israel His sheep (cf. Ezekiel 34:1-31). We should definitely pick up on the textual association between Jesus, the I AM before Abraham, and Jesus the Good Shepherd, YHWH who had returned to personally shepherd His sheep (John 8:58, 10:11). How He would lay down His life for the sheep, and take it back up again, would become manifest in its good time.

The people did not quite know what to do with everything which had transpired (John 10:19). Some continued to be convinced Jesus was demon possessed and insane, and asked how anyone else could listen to Him (John 10:20; cf. John 8:48, 52). But others denied His words could come from a demon, and asked how anyone possessed by a demon could give sight to a blind man (John 10:21).

Thus John the Evangelist ended his narratives about Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. As Israel celebrated the gifts of light, food, water, and life during the Feast of Tabernacles, thus Jesus demonstrated how He was the Light of the world, giving sight and wisdom, providing pasturage and fountains of living water for those who believe in Him. He proclaimed Himself the Son of Man and God the Son and made attestation by doing a thing no prophet before had ever done, but was prophesied regarding the Messiah: He gave sight to a blind man. The people remained as divided as ever: plenty found reason to dismiss Him as demon-possessed and insane, and while no one could make complete sense of what He was teaching, others could not dismiss Him so easily or glibly. May we well recognize Jesus as our Shepherd, the Light of the world, giving life through His sacrifice, and share in life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Shepherd Who Gives Sight appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Strawman Argument

We find it difficult for us when people make different arguments than the ones which we would like them to make. Such represents the temptation of the straw man.

One of the most prevalent forms of logical fallacies in our world today is the strawman argument. The “straw man” fallacious argument takes place when a person refutes an argument which was not actually made but was associated with the matter under discussion without making any recognition of any difference or distinction. It is called a “straw man” argument because it is as if the person created a “straw man” he could then easily tear down, yet in so doing has left the original argument, discussion, or premise unaddressed and untouched. The strawman argument is a form of fallacy of relevance, for it misrepresents the matter of discussion at hand and sets up an appeal or argument which is not entirely relevant to the main issue.

Strawman arguments can take different forms. A common version in modern political discourse involves using the extremes of an argument, doctrine, or group, and arguing against such extremes as if they represent what the argument, doctrine, or whole group is all about: arguing to extremes. One could even argue this tendency has helped cause much of the growing political extremism which marks our present moment. This tendency also exists within religious discourse, and to the same end: one could argue Augustine and the Pelagians ended up both radicalizing to the extremes of their position on account of the posturing and arguments both sides were making about each other.

Another similar form of a strawman argument involves exaggerating the argument or behavior of an opponent and then arguing against the exaggeration more than anything the opponent has actually set forth or done. Jesus’ opponents made such a strawman argument when they called Him a glutton and drunkard because He did not come fasting like John the Baptist but ate and drank with sinners (Matthew 11:18-19). It would be easier for them to condemn Him for eating or drinking to excess than for simply eating and drinking moderately with the people whom they derided.

Oversimplification represents another form of a strawman argument: in this way a person would make a caricature of the argument being presented and then would attack the caricature without regard to the actual argument being made. An example would involve suggesting confidence in the Lord Jesus saving those who are part of His church, and only those who are among His people, as meaning “you think you are the only ones going to Heaven.” Such is a gross oversimplification of a Biblical principle and would not at all help advance any argument encouraging humility among the people of God in terms of judgment regarding who will or will not be part of the saved.

Taking people’s statements out of context and arguing in ways inconsistent with what the person was saying in context is a most pernicious form of a strawman argument. You can watch any late night comedy show to see what you can make people seem like they are saying by taking bits of words out of context and stringing them along together. All language is contextual: the words we use have meaning in terms of the other words we are using. Not a few “write ups” have featured uncharitable interpretations of what a fellow Christian meant when he was speaking, and such does not reflect well on the one making such a strawman argument.

There will be better and worse advocates for any given idea, proposition, or behavior. When a person argues against the least persuasive or effective advocates for a matter, or only addresses the least persuasive arguments, and then presumes to have refuted the whole, such a one has built up a form of a strawman argument.

Based on these forms and examples we can well discern and imagine the various kinds of strawmen arguments which abound in modern discourse. All of them share a key feature: they are an attempt at subterfuge, to act as if a matter is well and fully addressed and refuted when the main substance has been left unaddressed. It can reflect a form of intellectual laziness. Unfortunately, many strawmen arguments are motivated by rhetorical sleights of hand: when it proves difficult or inconvenient to respond to a given argument or practice, one can try to distract by means of building up and tearing down a strawman argument and then attempt to persuade people the argument or practice has been refuted when no such thing has taken place in reality and truth.

As with all logical fallacies, creating and tearing down strawman arguments may seem easier or more persuasive, but such comes at the expense of strong, coherent argumentation, and do not really advance the pursuit of truth and understanding.

We might do better to consider the exact opposite of the strawman argument: the “steel man” argument, in which a person would think of an advance the strongest version of the opponent’s argument imaginable, even and especially when such was not what was advanced by the opponent him or herself. By arguing against the best possible argument for the opposition, one is best able to clarify what is at stake and make the best possible case for one’s position. After all, if one is truly advancing what is good, right, and true, should it not be able to stand up against the best of an opponent’s argumentation? Are we not better off finding out and recognizing the weaker points of our argumentation, and either frankly confess it or return again to God in Christ through the Spirit to see if we need to adapt and change to be better centered in His truth?

If we speak the truth in love (cf. Ephesians 4:15), we should be able to patiently and gently reason with others on the basis of what God has done in Christ through the Spirit, and not need to rely on the “shortcuts” and distortions which attend to the development of strawman arguments. May we seek to uphold and honor the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit, resist the temptation to create and tear down strawman arguments, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Strawman Argument appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

I AM, the Light of the World

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 related narratives regarding Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (or Feast of Booths; Sukkot) in Jerusalem, featuring Jesus’ instruction and the thoughts and feelings of the crowds and Jewish authorities (John 7:1-52). For many textual critical and literary reasons, we have concluded the pericope adulterae, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, of John 7:53-8:11 was not originally written by John, let alone at this point in the Gospel narrative. We therefore conclude John the Evangelist wrote a continuous narrative of events at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:1-52 and John 8:12-10:21.

In this view, immediately after the Pharisees chastise Nicodemus (John 7:50-52), Jesus declared before them how He was the light of the world; those who follow Him would never walk in darkness but would always enjoy the light of life (John 8:12). The Pharisees objected to His claim on technical grounds: He bore witness of Himself, and so His witness was invalid (John 8:13). While Jesus had previously confessed self-witness would not be valid (cf. John 5:30-37), at this point He owned up to it: Jesus knew His testimony was valid because He knew where He came from and where He was going, and His judgment, when He judges, was not of Himself but of His Father (John 8:14-16). Jesus appealed to the Law declaring the importance of two or more witnesses and declared Himself and His Father as witnesses (John 8:17-18; cf. Deuteronomy 17:6). In so doing Jesus devastated any appeal or argument to a modalistic view of the Godhead, for Jesus manifestly understood Himself and His Father as distinct persons.

The Pharisees asked regarding His Father; Jesus declared they knew neither Him nor His Father, for if they knew Him, they would know His Father (John 8:19). John the Evangelist then informed us how Jesus taught these things near the offering box in the Temple courts, and no one seized Him yet because His time had not yet arrived (John 8:20).

Jesus again affirmed how He would soon leave them; they would look for Him but not find Him, and would die in their sins (John 8:21). Jewish religious leaders speculated regarding His meaning, wondering if He were going to kill Himself (John 8:22). Jesus indicted them as being from below, while He came from above; unless they properly confessed Jesus, they would die in their sins (John 8:23-24). They asked Him who He was; He said He had indicated as much from the beginning (John 8:25). There was much more to be said, and when they would lift up the Son of Man, they should know who Jesus was and how He did the will of His Father, who has not abandoned Him and would not do so (John 8:26-29).

John the Evangelist’s audience has the benefit of understanding how all these things would play out, an advantage not given to those present when Jesus thus spoke. The confusion of the Jewish people, to some degree, remains quite understandable.

Nevertheless, some did believe in Jesus based on what He had been teaching (John 8:30). Jesus then focused His message on these “believers,” and presented to them a message which remains quite familiar to us today, and in its decontextualized form remains quite the encouragement: if you follow Jesus’ teachings, you are His disciples, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:31-32).

We might take great assurance and comfort in the hope of finding liberation in the truth. But such is not the way the “believing” Jewish people felt! They were deeply offended: they were children of Abraham, and had never been enslaved to anyone; so how could Jesus offer them freedom (John 8:33)? We will overlook the awkward “detail” of the slavery while in Egypt; “slavery” here was most assuredly understood by all involved in a spiritual sense, for Jesus would go on to explain how those who practice sin are slaves of sin (John 8:34). Slaves do not have standing in the household, but the Son does; thus, if the Son liberates them, they would be truly free (John 8:35-36). Jesus was quite aware of their genetic descent from Abraham; yet they want to kill Jesus because His teaching was not progressing among them (John 8:37). Jesus taught what He saw from the Father; these Israelites needed to accomplish it (John 8:38).

These “believing” Jewish people again protested: Abraham was their father (John 8:39). Jesus soberly pointed out how if Abraham were truly their father, they would act like he did, but they want to kill Jesus because He told them the truth of God, which Abraham would not do; but they were doing the deeds of the one who was their father (John 8:39-41). The “believers” protested further: they were not born of sexually deviant behavior; God was their Father (John 8:41). Jesus pressed on: if God were their Father, they would love Jesus, since He had come from God by God’s initiative (John 8:42). They could not understand because they did not accept His teaching (John 8:43). In truth their father was the Devil, he who was a murderer from the beginning, in whom there is no truth; a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). They do not believe Him even though He told them the truth (John 8:45). He invited anyone to indict Him of sin and wondered why they did not believe He was telling them the truth (John 8:46). Those who really belong to God listen to His words and do them; they were not listening because they did not really belong to God (John 8:47).

We do well to again emphasize Jesus’ audience: these are not heckling, unbelieving Jewish religious authorities. Jesus was speaking to those who “believed” in Him based on what He had been saying (John 8:30-31). We have kept “believers” in quotations because Jesus was demonstrating to them how they really did not believe. They thought they believed; they could see something in Jesus, but Jesus knew the ultimate end. Yes, indeed, Jesus’ words were provocations; it would be intolerable for the elect, the chosen people of God, to see themselves as children of the Evil One. Nevertheless, Jesus’ logic remains airtight: if He truly is who He said He was, and whom these Jewish people theoretically believe He was, their imminent rejection of Him for saying such things demonstrated how they really did not accept Him or His authority.

The people asked if they were right to say Jesus was a demon-possessed Samaritan; Jesus denied it, instead affirming His desire to honor the Father whom they were dishonoring (John 8:48-50). Jesus confessed how those who obeyed His teaching would never see death (John 8:51). The people seemed affirmed in their belief about Jesus as possessed by a demon: Abraham and the prophets died, but those who obey Jesus would never taste death? Who did Jesus think He was (John 8:52-53)? Jesus again confessed how self-glorification was worthless; He was glorified by the very Father whom they professed as their God (John 8:54). They did not know Him, but Jesus did know Him; if Jesus denied as much, He would be a liar as they were (John 8:55). Jesus told them Abraham rejoiced to see His day and was glad (John 8:56).

Was Jesus suggesting Abraham knew the Gospel during his life, or was Jesus intimating how Abraham was in God’s presence and able to rejoice in the blessings which would reach their fulfillment in Jesus? While we cannot be certain of this, we can perceive how the Jewish people understood Him: they wondered how Jesus, not yet fifty years old, could have seen Abraham (John 8:57). And then Jesus confessed it: before Abraham was, ego eimi, “I am” (John 8:58).

What Jesus meant by such a statement can be understood by the response of the people: they picked up stones with which to stone Him (John 8:59). In so doing they affirmed what Jesus had proleptically declared: they sought to kill Him (cf. John 8:37, 40). They felt justified in trying to kill Him because, in their estimation, He spoke in blasphemous ways. I AM was the name YHWH gave to Moses to tell Israel in Exodus 3:14; when Jesus said I AM before Abraham was, He was confessing His pre-incarnate existence as the Logos, as God the Son, and thus identified Himself as and with God.

And so those Jewish people who “believed” in Jesus, in a very short time, had picked up stones with which to stone Him. Jesus certainly was not using any kind of accommodative method with these “believers.” He challenged them directly and sharply regarding some of their most cherished beliefs about themselves and their relationship with God. We do well to remember how almost anyone and everyone prove fine with Jesus when what they think and feel aligns with what Jesus said and did. The true test of belief comes in those matters wherein Jesus taught and did things which challenge and question fundamental aspects and ideas about ourselves. In those circumstances, can we find the humility and wisdom to subject ourselves under the Lordship of Jesus, or will we protest and cling to what we vainly imagine to be true about ourselves?

Jesus seemed to be in quite the predicament: in the Temple courts with a bunch of angry people looking to execute Him. Yet John the Evangelist informed us how Jesus “was hidden from them” and was able to leave the Temple area (John 8:59). Perhaps Jesus was rendered invisible in some way; perhaps His visage was changed; maybe it featured something else; but most assuredly Jesus’ escape was miraculous. This was not the first time Jesus was thus able to escape a mortal predicament, and doubtless it was because His time had not yet come.

Jesus very famously makes many “I am” statements in the Gospel of John, and they are all worth deep consideration. Jesus is the light of the world indeed. Yet Jesus is also the I AM, Immanuel, YHWH in the flesh. May we truly believe in Jesus, faithfully serve Him, and overcome death in the resurrection of life through Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post I AM, the Light of the World appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Military Preparations in the Wilderness

Now YHWH spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting in the desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites departed from the land of Egypt.
He said: “Take a census of the entire Israelite community by their clans and families, counting the name of every individual male” (Numbers 1:1-2).

“Numbers” sounds perhaps like an accountant’s paradise and torturous for everyone else. The book’s reputation has likely suffered as a result, which is unfortunate. We have much to gain from an understanding of the Book of Numbers.

“Numbers” is so named from the Greek name for the book; in Hebrew, the book is named for its first real noun: bemidbar, “in the wilderness”, which proves a much more accurate and appropriate title. Whereas we will continue to speak of it as the Book of Numbers, we should remember throughout how it is the book about Israel in the wilderness.

The Book of Numbers is the fourth book of the Torah, or Pentateuch, and was composed and framed to fit within that greater narrative. No author was explicitly identified; tradition throughout the rest of Scripture associated it with Moses himself. While there might well be later inspired editorial explanations and framing, we will consider the majority of the substance to have come from Moses.

The Book of Numbers described preparations and events which remained part of the greater story of Israel wandering in the wilderness. The “wilderness” is appropriately translated as desert by the New English Translation (NET): the whole swath of land east of Egypt and south of Canaan was harsh and intemperate desert. Numbers 1:1-10:10 represented the conclusion of the year Israel spent at Mount Sinai, described throughout Exodus 19:1-40:38 and Leviticus 1:1-27:34 as well. If we take literally and seriously the years presented in Exodus 12:41-42 and 1 Kings 6:1, these events would have taken place around 1450 BCE. Many interpreters and scholars feel more historically comfortable dating these events to around 1250 BCE. The events of Numbers 10:11-17:13 would have taken place in the days and weeks immediately following Israel’s departure from Sinai. No explicit transition is made, but it would seem the forty years of wandering transpired around this time in the narrative; by Numbers 20:1-36:13, the events described seem to take place not long before Moses rehearsed Deuteronomy and Israel then crossed over the Jordan as described in Joshua. Thus these latter events would have taken place around 1410 BCE (1210 BCE?), and Moses would have composed his account of these events around this time.

Thus the Book of Numbers was written to describe the final preparations and departure of Israel from Mount Sinai and their continued wilderness wanderings, featuring the faithlessness of the people, how God condemned almost all of them to die in the wilderness, and ultimately how the people end up at the Jordan River in the land of Moab opposite Jericho.

The Book of Numbers was thus named on account of the many numerical lists in the text, and it begins with one such list: the census which YHWH commanded of the Israelites in Numbers 1:1-54.

If we would properly understand this census and its meaning, we must first do some forgetting. Yes, we know how God will soon condemn that whole generation to die in the wilderness for their persistent faithlessness; yet such a condemnation has not yet taken place when we consider Israel in the wilderness in Numbers 1:1-2:34. At this point in the narrative, God’s purposes remained as they had been in Egypt: He would deliver the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery with a strong hand; He would lead them to the mountain on which He had spoken to Moses, to Horeb in Sinai; and then He would lead them into the land of Canaan as He had promised their ancestors.

To this end YHWH commissioned the census of Israel, made evident in who was being counted and why. YHWH commanded Moses to count “all the males twenty years old or older who could serve in the army” (Numbers 1:1-3ff). God was therefore not simply interested in getting an idea of how many Israelites existed at this time; the military census was only taken as a prelude to preparation for military activity. Thus David would be censured and Israel punished for the census he commanded in 2 Samuel 24:1-25: David was preparing for some kind of war which YHWH had not authorized. Yet here YHWH was preparing Israel for the conquest of Canaan.

YHWH did not expect Moses and Aaron to do this themselves; God even identified the head man of each of the tribes of Israel to help facilitate and execute the census (Numbers 1:4-16). The record of the number of men twenty and over who could participate in war was then provided: 46,500 Reubenites, 59,300 Simeonites, 45,650 Gadites, 74,600 Judahites, 54,400 Issacharites, 57,400 Zebulunites, 40,500 Ephraimites, 32,200 Manassites, 35,400 Benjaminites, 62,700 Danites, 41,500 Asherites, 53,400 Naphtalites, for a total of 603,550 men who could serve in the military (Numbers 1:17-46). The Levites, as dedicated to the service of YHWH, were not counted as part of this military census; they were to remain dedicated to the service of the Tabernacle and would camp around it (Numbers 1:47-54).

YHWH then made provision for the proper order and organization of the camp of the Israelites. What kind of order or organization of the Israelites existed before Sinai was left unrevealed; but from here on out Israel would be traveling with the Ark of the Covenant and all of the furnishings of the Tabernacle, and YHWH intended to emphasize how it would be YHWH and His presence which would protect the Israelites and lead them into the battle. To this end, each tribe would camp by itself; to the east of the Tabernacle, and the front of the Israelite host, would be Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun (Numbers 2:1-9). Reuben, Simeon, and Gad would camp to the south of the Tabernacle and would follow after Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun (Numbers 2:10-16). The Levites would camp around the Tabernacle and would travel in the middle of the Israelite host (Numbers 2:17). Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin would camp to the east of the Tabernacle and would follow the Levites (Numbers 2:18-24). Dan, Asher, and Naphtali would camp to the north of the Tabernacle and would represent the rear of the Israelite host (Numbers 2:25-34).

Many have tried to work out various schemes or frameworks to explain why which tribe was associated with which direction, or why some were prioritized over others. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali would end up obtaining land in the northernmost part of Israel, but so would Issachar and Zebulun; Judah and Simeon would end up at the south, and thus such a scheme falls apart. The tribal associations of the four quadrants thus remain opaque to us. We can make good sense of Judah, Reuben, and Ephraim as prominent as the heads of their various divisions: Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob, and Jacob had promised Judah and Ephraim rule and prominence; perhaps as the firstborn of the slave wives Dan was thus reckoned as also worthy of its prominence.

We can make a few observations about the numbers themselves. At this time it would seem Judah was the most populous tribe (74,600), with Manasseh as the least populous (32,200). These numbers would change during the wilderness wanderings, as the military census taken forty years later would attest (cf. Numbers 26:1-65).

Yet what seems most obvious about the military census is its sheer size. According to the text as we understand it, there were 603,500 men over twenty but able to serve in war. Such would not include men under twenty, all the women, and men who were disabled or in advanced age. Such would mean the total number of Israelites would likely exceed two million people!

It proves challenging to reconcile those numbers with the reality on the ground as we understand it at this point in the Bronze Age of the ancient Near East, as well as with the textual tradition as preserved in Deuteronomy. Ancient authors (in)famously inflated the numbers in armies; consider the accounts of the Persian Wars with the Greeks. It would seem Ramses II was able to field an army of around 100,000 in the early thirteenth century BCE; scholars believe the huge army with which Xerxes invaded Greece in 480 BCE featured 300,000 soldiers at most. It is estimated the whole population of Egypt, notable as one of the most fertile and populous of the ancient Near Eastern societies, would have been between 4 and 5 million people around 1400 BCE; it would be very difficult to imagine the population of Canaan at this time even approaching anywhere near one million. Why this proves challenging can be seen in Deuteronomy 7:1, in which Moses declared the seven nations of Canaan as being more numerous and powerful than the Israelites.

YHWH certainly could have managed such a huge population, providing for them and supplying them in the wilderness; but an army of 603,500 would have been by far the largest in the ancient Near Eastern world at this time, and would make a mockery of Deuteronomy 7:1.

Some scholars suggest the numbers were presented to demonstrate how successfully Israel had grown in population during their Egyptian sojourn, and do not attempt to resolve any tension between these numbers and what Moses declared in Deuteronomy 7:1. Some have suggested the word which would later become “thousands” in Hebrew, ‘eleph, originally meant a type of military unit; in this type of computation the army’s numbers would be decimated and no more than about 60,000, which would still be a very robust army.

Thus we do well to hold lightly to the specific numbers in the military censuses of Israel in the wilderness; we can trust Israel had grown significantly from the 70 people of Jacob’s family who began the sojourn over four hundred years earlier, and would have provided a sufficient base to populate the land of Canaan during and after the conquest, but not so large and vast as to be able to trust in their numerical strength alone, and remained completely and thoroughly dependent on YHWH and His strength for any confidence in victory.

In this way YHWH prepared Israel for what He intended as the upcoming conflict: they would soon leave Sinai, and were thus organized and prepared to go on the march which would eventually lead to Canaan and the conquest. It would all eventually take place, yet not as originally intended. May we learn from the people of God who came before us so we might well glorify God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Military Preparations in the Wilderness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Guilt By Association

If you can’t beat them on the merits, try to make them look bad.

Such seems to be the logic, however consciously or unconsciously manifest, by those who advance the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

Guilt by association, sometimes called appeal to spite, takes place when a person attempts to associate a person or a set of arguments or ideas with a person and/or a set of arguments or ideas which their audience already regards with ambivalence, hostility, and/or resistance. Guilt by association is a part of the family of association fallacies, in which it is alleged two things must share the same properties if they prove part of the same group. Likewise, guilt by association exists within the domain of ad hominem fallacies, since it often features a person being attacked or slandered as opposed to addressing the substantive claims the person would advance.

Christians are tempted to commit the guilt by association fallacy in many contexts for a host of reasons. Sometimes the accusation of guilt by association proves quite concrete: a Christian will speak of another Christian as in sin or bringing disrepute upon the cause of Christ, not because of anything he or she believes or practices themselves, but purely on the basis of maintaining some level of association or fellowship with another Christian who, in perception or reality, believes and/or practices in ways which the first Christian finds objectionable. Such accusations can develop their own “daisy chain”: the problem with Christian A is they maintain association with Christian B who is the one who maintains association with “objectionable” Christian C, and this can go on ad infinitum until every Christian in the world becomes guilty by association!

The New Testament provides appropriate warnings to Christians regarding the kind and level of associations they should maintain with those who profess to follow Jesus but either teach falsely in ways which corrupt and adulterate the apostolic Gospel of Christ and/or persist in disobedience and immorality which has been confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses (Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 15:33, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). John did condemn those who provided greeting, hospitality, and thus material advantage to the docetists who denied the humanity of Jesus (2 John 1:6-11); but in their behavior such Christians became joint participants in the wickedness of those who were antichrist. Yet in these regards each will stand or fall before the Lord Jesus (cf. Romans 14:10-12): we have every right to warn a fellow brother or sister in Christ regarding such an errant Christian with whom he or she has maintained significant associations, but we have no ground, right, or standing to judge or condemn them for whatever they decide to do with that information. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever gave Christians the right to judge others for what their perceived associations, especially on matters of far less significance than those which concerned John. Those who would make such judgments and condemnations should be rebuked for their presumptuous arrogance; if they will not hear after two such rebukes, they should be treated as divisive people and rejected according to Paul’s exhortation in Titus 3:10-11.

Christians tend to be more tempted to commit the guilt by association fallacy in terms of various doctrines and practices. There is often an almost overexuberant eagerness to attempt to associate any doctrine or practice with which one is uncomfortable with some religious organization with whom we maintain significant disagreements and/or to lump a person and/or what they have been teaching and doing with some well-known infamous person considered a false teacher by at least a faction of brethren.

Many times, there will be at least some type of connection or relationship which exists in reality between the person/doctrine/practice and the group or person with whom they are being associated; this relationship often seems to legitimate the fallacy in the minds of many hearers or readers. For example, many brethren prove uncomfortable with the eschatological perspective expecting a restored earth and/or a “new heavens” and a “new earth,” and will often attempt to associate such doctrines with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yes, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, as part of their eschatological perspective, imagine the existence of a restored earth on which many will live. But they imagine the “new heavens” will be populated with the 144,000 elect within their doctrinal framework, with anyone else who does not go to hell relegated to the restored or new earth. The Jehovah’s Witness perspective on eschatology, furthermore, proves utterly reliant on dispensational premillennialism.

Many faithful brethren have confidence in a “restored” earth/”new heavens and new earth” eschatological perspective but reject the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the elect and dispensational premillennialism. Such represents a classic example of the guilt by association fallacy: aspersions are cast on the legitimacy of the eschatological position because it happens to share some features in common with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Such an eschatological prospect is not inherently delegitimated because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in something similar; nor would it gain any legitimacy if Jehovah’s Witnesses had never happened to believe anything similar whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there are other times in which brethren will commit the guilt by association fallacy even though the person, doctrine, or practice has very little, if any, actual connection or relationship with the disfavored person or group. An example of this involves the condemnation of “Neo-Calvinism” in churches of Christ. If one were to go online and search for “Neo-Calvinism,” one would discover Neo-Calvinism as a movement within the Dutch Reformed world associated with Abraham Kuyper, who desired to more forcefully apply Calvinist theological logic in the realm of the everyday in the early twentieth century. While there are likely some Neo-Calvinist ideas which have been filtered through various later Reformed theologians which may have affected some members of churches of Christ, such is not at all what is imagined by “Neo-Calvinism” in churches of Christ. Instead, “Neo-Calvinism” was the term conjured up by some brethren in a previous generation and used against some Christians who proved more ecumenical in spirit and, it was claimed, who desired to emphasize grace to the detriment of obedience. Other arguments which have been “recycled” among brethren for generations about the continuous cleansing of Christians and the propensity to sin were also added into this mix. Since many brethren associate any insistence on grace with which they prove uncomfortable with the tenets of Calvinism, it seemed natural to them to consider such things “Neo-Calvinism,” even though, by common confession, no one involved affirmed Reformed confessions, the TULIP system of doctrine, or anything regarding what everyone else understood as “Neo-Calvinism.”

This last example does well to demonstrate what goes wrong when Christians fall prey to the guilt by association fallacy. We now see arguments casting aspersions on the creation and use of the term “Neo-Calvinism,” and then the attempts to excuse or rationalize the characterization; meanwhile, actual doctrines and/or practices are only being discussed as to whether they legitimate the paradigm or not. In the end, even if one could legitimate the use of “Neo-Calvinism” in churches of Christ, that association alone does not make any person, doctrine, or practice inherently justified or condemned. What drove the impulse to create such a characterization, even though said characterization already existed in a very different form? Why was there perceived to be such a need to cast such aspersions on what certain brethren were teaching and/or doing, attempting to create a category and a system? The goal, as with all forms of guilt by association, was to demonize those with whom they disagreed, and poison the well of discourse about a set of subjects. The term continues to be used to the same end with the attempted same effect: now whenever a preacher would attempt to place the emphasis upon grace which arguably can be perceived from the Apostle Paul himself, he is liable to be accused of “Neo-Calvinism” as opposed to having anyone actually argue whether that emphasis is justified or condemned on its merits. Ironically, the accusation ends up saying more about the person who would level it than the one against whom it is leveled.

We have not done ourselves any favors by constantly appealing to the “denominational” bogeyman. Such is not a denial of how many religious groups professing Christianity have taught and practiced all kinds of things regarding which the Scriptures say nothing or which work against what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit. But no teaching or practice is inherently made wrong because they are believed and/or practiced within Christian denominations; in fact, almost every doctrine or practice we uphold and affirm as apostolic and worthy of emulation is also upheld and affirmed by some Christian denomination. Thus, calling something “denominational” does not tell you much about it: we could argue baptism for the remission of sins is “denominational” because Roman Catholics affirm it, or singing without the use of instruments in music is “denominational” because the Eastern Orthodox have practiced that way for thousands of years.

Instead, by maintaining the “denominational” bogeyman, we have often thereby fallen into error because we wanted to stand as far as possible away from its opposing error. I have personally witnessed Christians who have proven uncomfortable with Jesus’ humanity because to them it seemed like “something the Jehovah’s Witnesses would believe.” Granted, such was probably a garbled concern based on how Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to an Arian Christology in which Jesus is “a” son of god but not God the Son. Yet Scripture powerfully affirms Jesus remains fully human as well as fully divine, and that remains true whatever Jehovah’s Witnesses happen to believe (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 2:14-18, etc.). Likewise, while one might attempt to cast aspersions on a “restored” earth/”new heavens and new earth” eschatological perspective by associating it with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the generally opposing view, the purely “heaven bound” eschatological perspective could be associated with the Gnostics and their contempt for all things material, explicitly condemned by Paul and John (1 Timothy 6:20-21, 2 John 1:6-11).

Since nothing is inherently condemned because a given person or denomination believes in and/or practices it, Christians do well to resist such tempting but ultimately fallacious arguments. Beliefs and practices should be considered and affirmed or denied on the basis of whether they prove consistent or inconsistent with what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit. We will never come to the truth of God in Christ simply by reacting against what a given religious organization affirms or denies about a given matter; in most matters of the faith error remains present on both extremes, and truth quite often will be found upheld in the tension and balance among what might seem to be contradictory and thus paradoxical premises. There is no virtue in going full Augustinian Calvinist, for instance; but full Pelagianism is no better. In the end, there might be a given kind of error in front of you, but there also is an error behind you of which you may not be as aware, or find as repellent; and many have become deceived thereby. Sadly, we too often end up arguing in attempts to justify our characterizations and accusations of guilt by association rather than addressing the actual, substantive issues regarding which there might be disagreement. Furthermore, nuance regarding matters of emphasis are often drowned out because a self-appointed watchman decided any deviation from what he has come to believe is the norm must automatically be a capitulation to some denominational doctrine.

Who among us has the right or standing to declare their understanding of what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit should be the arbiter of what is right and true, and any possible deviation in any direction must therefore be apostasy unto some form of denominationalism? But how is that not the rotten fruit of our reliance on accusations of guilt by association to set forth what we believe to be wrong from what we believe to be right?

As opposed to saying something is wrong because this or that person or denomination believed in it or practiced it, we do better to demonstrate from what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit what proves difficult or challenging with a given belief or practice. We do better at leaving the ultimate judgment to the One whom God has appointed for that purpose, the Lord Jesus Christ, lest we be found judges rather than doers, and perhaps even condemned. May we prove humble servants of the Lord, not arrogant presumptuous accusers of God’s people, and find salvation in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Guilt By Association appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Pericope Adulterae

It is one of the most well-known stories about Jesus during His ministry, and yet, as far as we can tell, it has no real true “home” in any of the Gospels.  The story involves Jesus and the woman caught in adultery found in modern Bibles in John 7:53-8:11, known also as the pericope adulterae: the Bible extract about the adulterous woman.

Christians devoted to textual criticism of the Biblical text, even from antiquity, recognized the difficulty with the pericope adulterae.  Many of the earliest commentators on the Gospel of John, including Origen, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, provide no commentary whatsoever on the passage, strongly suggesting it was not present in the copies of the Gospel of John they were reading.  Jerome spoke of how many of the Greek and Latin copies of the Gospel of John included the pericope, as if its inclusion was not the default in most manuscripts (cf. Against the Pelagians 2.17).

The textual evidence as it has been preserved for us bears similar witness.  The passage is omitted in manuscripts 𝔓 66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241; A and C do not fully preserve that part of John, but measurements seem to indicate there would not have been room for the pericope in them based on the size of the missing sections.  D M and Latin texts do preserve the pericope.  Some other manuscripts, like E S Λ, contain part or the whole of the pericope but with asterisks or obeli indicating the copyist’s understanding of its disputed nature.  Furthermore, the pericope is present in other manuscripts but in different places in the Gospels: 225 after John 7:36, {115} after John 8:12, ƒ1 as an “appendix” to the Gospel after John 21:25, and in f13 after Luke 21:38, as well as the corrector of 1333 placing it as an “appendix” to the Gospel of Luke after Luke 24:53.

Such involves a lot of technical terms from the discipline of New Testament textual criticism; in short, most of the earliest attestations of the Gospel of John from the papyri of the 3rd century, “uncial” manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries, and even many of the later “minuscule” manuscripts do not record the pericope at all, and some which have it but placed elsewhere, further reinforcing the textual difficulties.

On account of these textual critical issues, ancient and modern, as well as additional literary factors, most scholars and commentators do not believe John the Evangelist wrote the pericope adulterae, John 7:53-8:11.  According to this understanding, in order to appreciate the flow of the narrative as presented by John the Evangelist, the reader should proceed from John 7:52 to John 8:12; thus John 8:12-59 represents additional discourses of Jesus with the Pharisees, other Jewish leaders, and the Judeans who believed in Him on the final day of the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths; Sukkot).  This exercise can provide additional attestation to John 7:53-8:11 as a later insertion, since the narrative flows much better when John 8:12-59 is properly considered with John 7:37-52.

What, then, should we say about this pericope adulterae?  While most scholars and commentators do not believe it was written by John the Evangelist, most nevertheless believe the pericope preserves an authentic story involving Jesus, scribes and Pharisees, an adulterous woman, and a crowd of Jewish people in Jerusalem.  There were, no doubt, all kinds of such stories circulating in the days of Jesus, the Apostles, and in early Christianity; the pericope adulterae was written down and preserved, and perhaps attached to the end of the Gospel of Luke and/or John as a sort of “appendix.”  People later decided to attempt to find the best place to insert the story into the Gospel narrative: someone who might have seen it attached to Luke felt it worked best after Jesus’ discourse on Jerusalem in Luke 21:38, but the person who perhaps saw it attached to John placed it as John 7:53-8:11 since Jesus is in Jerusalem throughout John 7:10-8:59, and the latter’s copy of the Gospels was clearly better reflected in later manuscripts.

On account of all these things we do well to consider the pericope adulterae as an authentic and inspired recollection of the story as written. Yet we know nothing else about its context other than its location in the Temple in Jerusalem (John 8:2).  John the Evangelist never used the term “scribe” to speak of any of the Jewish authorities as Matthew, Mark, and Luke do (John 8:3); despite its current placement, therefore, the pericope might be more associated with the Synoptic traditions than Johannine.  In the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, most of Jesus’ experiences on the Mount of Olives and in the Temple center on the final week of His life, and thus perhaps the events of the pericope took place at that time; its placement after Luke 21:38, therefore, might not be terribly off in terms of timeframe.  Yet all of the suggestions from this evidence should give us pause about considering it either part of John the Evangelist’s narrative or as taking place around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles in the second year of Jesus’ ministry.

It is perhaps the textual critic who inserted the pericope adulterae who adapted the existing narrative by sending everyone home, with Jesus going to the Mount of Olives, and then having everyone return to the courts of the Temple the next morning (John 7:53-8:2).  The pericope itself really got going with Jesus teaching the people in the Temple courts: while He did so, scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman who had been caught committing adultery in flagrante – in the very act of doing so (John 8:3-4).  They presented her before Jesus, declaring the Law of Moses commanded such women to be stoned to death, and asked Jesus what He would say about it (John 8:5).  The narrator of the pericope affirmed the woman had been caught committing adultery, but also how the scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus so they might bring charges against Him (John 8:3, 6).

The narrator related how Jesus then bent over and began writing on the ground with His finger (John 8:6).  The scribes and Pharisees persisted in their line of questioning; Jesus finally stood up and declared how whoever among them who was without sin could cast the first stone at her (John 8:7).  While He returned to writing on the ground with His finger, the scribes, Pharisees, and crowd ostensibly remained in awkward silence; the oldest among them began to file away, followed, again ostensibly, by the younger, until only the accused woman and Jesus remained (John 8:8-9).  Jesus stood up and asked her where everyone had gone and if any had condemned her; she responded, “no one, Lord” (John 8:10-11). Jesus then told her He did not condemn her either, and told her to depart, yet to sin no more (John 8:11).  In this way the pericope adulterae ended, and seemingly without any real attempt to “smooth over” the transition back into John the Evangelist’s narrative in John 8:12ff.

The pericope adulterae might be short and without a lot of context, but it remains endlessly dynamic and fascinating with many subtle twists and turns which we do well to address and consider.

We know the scribes and Pharisees do not act in good faith but look for a reason to accuse Jesus.  Even beyond this, however, what they want to do proves problematic.  The scribes and Pharisees claim to have caught the woman in flagrante, which begs the question: where is the man with whom she was committing adultery?  The Law of Moses did not actually demand stoning as the means of execution for those caught in adultery in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-24, just that they be executed; but of greater importance was the commandment for both of them to be stoned.  Thus, does the Law really demand for “such women” to be stoned, as the scribes and Pharisees allege (John 8:5)?  It would be misogynist, unjust, and a miscarriage of justice to compel the woman to submit to capital punishment while the equally culpable man got off free.  Jesus’ response indicated a far greater concern than this particular technical concern, but it should disabuse us for any sympathy we might be tempted to have for the scribes and the Pharisees.  They are not really concerned for fulfillment of the Law and its demands for justice and righteousness; the woman was being used as a pawn in their crusade against Jesus, which rendered their behavior as all the more reprehensible.

What was Jesus writing on the ground in John 8:6, 8?  Everyone wants to know!  It is possible to interpret the narrator’s use of Greek katagrapho, “writing,” as more specifically as “writing an accusation” based on the context; manuscripts U 264 700 preserve a scribal addition of “the sins of all of them” in John 8:6 or John 8:8, so many in antiquity already considered this option quite valid.  While it remains possible Jesus’ spoken words alone were enough to convict the members of the crowd of their guilt, one can also imagine at least one person who would have proven quite self-righteous and who would thus take it upon him or herself to begin the stoning.  But if Jesus was indeed writing out the sins of the crowd, or perhaps some verse of the Torah which they all would have violated in some way at some time (e.g. love your neighbor as yourself, Leviticus 19:18), such self-righteousness would have proven shameful.  We cannot possibly know what precisely Jesus was writing, but we would not be wrong to associate it with the immediate context of the events and as having some bearing on the ultimate result of the entire pericope.

Yet Jesus’ treatment of the woman remains the most compelling about the pericope adulterae.  At no point did He, or anyone else, dispute the legitimacy of the accusation, nor did He or anyone else downplay its severity or the punishment as declared in the Law.  Yet such remains the ultimate irony of the whole pericope: Jesus is without guilt, and thus had the right and standing to cast the first stone (cf. Hebrews 4:15).  Yet He did not condemn the adulterous woman.

Jesus would have been entirely just, and in the right, if He told the scribes and Pharisees to go and seize the adulterous man and have them both executed. Having the woman and the man executed would satisfy justice and righteousness, but neither could then be saved. Jesus had told Nicodemus in John 3:16-17 how the Father did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but for the world to be saved through Him.  He demonstrated as much in the case of the adulterous woman.

Jesus’ treatment of the adulterous woman should therefore resonate with all of those who would claim to be His disciples. Sinners sin; sinners were sinning in the first century, and sinners in the twenty-first century continue to sin.  Sin remains an affront to God and His holiness and righteousness; sin denigrates our humanity and leads to our hurt and injury.  In certain circumstances among God’s people, with sufficient evidence from two or three witnesses, the people of God may be compelled to disassociate from a so-called Christian who would persist in sin and/or false teachings (cf. Romans 16:17-19, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13).

When the final day comes, Jesus will judge everyone on the basis of what they have done, and those who persisted in disobedience will be condemned (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:5-11).  Indeed, at no point should the people of God commend, excuse, or justify sin: Jesus did tell the woman to go and sin no more, after all.  But it is not our place to judge and condemn people (cf. Matthew 7:1-4, James 4:11-12).  We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; therefore, who among us has the right to pick up a stone to judge and condemn anyone else?  The One who does have that right will ultimately judge, but we have not yet arrived at that day.  Jesus’ mission remains the same today as it was when He spoke with Nicodemus: He came not to condemn the world, but to save it.

Even if someone were to deny the authenticity of the pericope adulterae, or if it had never existed, if we were to imagine such a scenario in which scheming Jewish authorities hauled a pawn up before Him and asked Him what they should do about her, what other kind of response would we imagine might come from Jesus other than the one given in the pericope? It absolutely sounds like how Jesus would handle that kind of situation.  And even though John the Evangelist most likely did not write the pericope adulterae, John’s portrayal of Jesus well aligns with Jesus in the pericope.  We thus do well to heed the lessons of the pericope adulterae: go and sin no more, but remember how we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, seek to direct those who sin to Jesus for healing and repentance, leaving final judgment to Him.  Whenever we prove more zealous for the execution of justice and righteousness than the Lord Himself, we actually do the work of the Adversary and Accuser, forgetting how much we depend on God’s grace, and how liable we would otherwise be to similar punishment.  May we faithfully serve God in Christ and encourage everyone to follow Him so we might all obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Pericope Adulterae appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Introducing Revelation

Perhaps no book of the Bible is as controversial as the book of Revelation. For the past two thousand years believers have been amazed, astounded, and often rather confused by all the pictures and images presented in Revelation. Many people have no confidence in their understanding of Revelation; many others are quite convinced they have the key to understanding Revelation and often seek to understand the rest of the Bible through Revelation. We have all heard of strange theories and suggestions based upon what someone imagines Revelation as describing. It is easy to understand why many Christians are a bit fearful of Revelation and feel as if they will never have a good understanding of what it means.

All of this confusion, division, contention, and despair regarding Revelation is quite unfortunate; Revelation was written to encourage, strengthen, and reinforce the faith of Christians suffering persecution at the hands of powerful foes in the first century. Revelation, when understood properly in its context and within the greater story told throughout the Bible, can encourage and strengthen us in our faith in compelling and majestic ways.

Revelation 1:1-20 introduces us to Revelation and provides many insights as to how to go forward. Revelation comes from the Greek apokalupsis, which means a revealing or unveiling (cf. Revelation 1:1). The Revelation is not designed to conceal or hide; quite the contrary! Instead, the revelation is of God, given to Jesus Christ and presented to John by an angel to reveal and make known to His servants those things which are about to take place (Revelation 1:1-2). Revelation will present a picture of the end of all things and the ultimate judgment scene, but it begins and remains rooted in its own time at the end of the first century CE (ca. 93-96), and it is designed to make things clearer. Those who read it aloud and hear it are blessed if they will keep what they have heard (Revelation 1:3): Revelation is not just a picture of a series of events but expects those who hear it to do something about it and take their place within it.

From Revelation 1:4-9 we understand that the Revelation was given to John, most likely the Apostle who is also responsible for the Gospel and Letters of John, while he was exiled on the island of Patmos for his faith. The Revelation is written as a letter to the seven churches of Asia, which are seven specific local congregations in the Roman province of Asia which is in modern-day western Turkey (Revelation 1:4, 11). Yet the messages to those churches, as well as the rest of Revelation, are designed for the exhortation and encouragement of all Christians. The Revelation is provided through the work of all three members of the Godhead, the Father who was, is, and will be, the “sevenfold” Spirit, and Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:4-5). In Jesus believers were made a kingdom and a priesthood; this is spoken of in the past tense, indicating that Jesus’ Kingdom is here and now, and believers are to be His ministers before Him (cf. Colossians 1:13, 1 Peter 2:3-8). Jesus is described as the ruler of kings on earth (Revelation 1:5): throughout Revelation, even though we will encounter powerful persecutors empowered by the forces of darkness, we are given confidence that Jesus is still in control.

The vision begins in Revelation 1:10-20: John is in the Spirit on the Lord’s day and hears a voice behind him. He turns to see who speaks to him, and he is confronted with a majestic image of a powerful ruler, full of powerful details (Revelation 1:10-16). John is overtaken and falls at his feet as one dead; this ruler tells him to not be afraid, but to stand, for He is the Lord Jesus, the First and the Last, the Living One, who died but lives forevermore, and who has control over Death and Hades (Revelation 1:17-18). The imagery is quite powerful, and while we have no doubt that John is seeing such things in his vision, it points us to its reference in Daniel 7:9-14: the Ancient of Days (in Daniel, the Father) and the “one like a son of man” (in Daniel, the Messiah). Yet, in John’s vision, the characteristics of the Ancient of Days are seen in the “one like a son of man,” thereby indicating the unity between the Father and the Son and the authority vested in the Son.

So many times we think of Jesus as a gentle man, almost soft, unobtrusive, someone whom we would never fear. And yet here in Revelation 1:12-16 Jesus is described in powerful terms, an imposing figure, One who rightly deserves worship. If we were John, we would also have our faces plastered on the ground and be as one dead, quite afraid! Jesus is meek and gentle (cf. Matthew 11:29), but He is also Lord Almighty, and we should keep both attributes in mind as we remember Jesus and seek to serve Him.

Revelation 1:20 is an important “landmark” in Revelation. In it Jesus describes the meaning of the seven stars in His hand and the seven lampstands around Him: they represent the angels for the churches and the churches themselves, respectively. This shows us that Revelation is something which needs interpreting: John says what he sees, but he means what he means! Yes, he sees stars and lampstands, but he means angels and churches: the images in the vision have references, representing other things. It can be profitable for us to consider why certain images accurately reflect characteristics of what they represent: a lampstand is a vessel to contain light, and the church should be the vessel in which the truth and glory of Jesus should be placed (cf. Matthew 5:13-16, 1 Timothy 3:15). White represents purity and holiness; it thus makes sense that Jesus’ hair should be reckoned as white, along with the imagery of redemption and purity in Isaiah 1:18 (cf. Revelation 1:14).

Revelation, therefore, uses all sorts of images to describe conditions which the early Christians would face. Those images represent something else, and any profitable study of Revelation will seek to understand what exactly Jesus is communicating to His churches through them. They can be understood and we can be encouraged by them; they reinforce and illuminate the truths we find throughout the rest of the Bible. Let us praise and serve the Risen Lord Jesus, He who died but lives forevermore, and keep the things He has revealed to us!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Introducing Revelation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.