Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake (Romans 13:1-5).

For 1,700 years the controversy has centered on Romans 13.

For all the New Testament teachings regarding Jesus’ spiritual Kingdom, its pages provided precious few declarations regarding earthly nations and their governance. Only in Romans 13:1-7 is earthly government discussed in any substantive and meaningful way. Little wonder, then, that once Christianity gained societal respectability and earthly authorities began professing it, Romans 13:1-7 would feature prominently in justification of and argumentation regarding how governments would act.

To this end the text has been stretched and bended far beyond anything its original author would have intended. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the king of England and loyal political philosophers laid ahold of Paul’s declaration that the earthly government is ordained by God (Romans 13:1-2), and used it to justify the doctrine of the divine right of kings, suggesting that since God ordained the king to be in charge, the commands of the king were as the commands of God. Yet, by the end of that century and into the next, some Enlightenment philosophers laid ahold of Paul’s reasoning behind the existence of the earthly government as the agent of God’s wrath toward those doing evil in Romans 13:3-4, inferred that any ruler terrorizing good conduct and good people and not sufficiently punishing evil has lost their divine mandate, and thus suggested that it was justifiable to overthrow any government which had thus “lost” its divine mandate. Within two centuries the same text could be used to justify both the establishment of a dictatorship as well as its overthrow.

The government and the Christian’s relationship to it is a sensitive topic today. As we can see, the main text describing that relationship has been used to justify all sorts of attitudes toward government for centuries. What shall we do?

We do well to honor one of the most fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation: first understand the text in context. When Paul writes what is found in Romans 13:1-7, he does not have in mind the British monarchy or the American democratic republic per se. Instead, he writes to the Christians living in the capital of the Roman empire in the early days of the Emperor Nero.

When we take a moment to strip away the layers of assumptions and inferences in order to try to get back to Paul’s original premise, we find that Paul’s primary purpose in Romans 13:1-7 is to legitimate the existence of an earthly governmental authority, consistent with what Peter will write in 1 Peter 2:13-17 as well. If we think about it, this concern makes a lot of sense, for one of the principal proclamations of the Gospel is that Jesus is Lord (kurios; cf. Acts 2:36). If Jesus is Lord of all, that means that Caesar is not, and many of the opponents of the Gospel seized upon this (cf. Acts 17:6-7). Meanwhile, the Roman authorities were ambivalent toward or hostile against the faith: the recently dead Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome, possibly because of the preaching of Jesus as the Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). There were already whispers about the darker side of Nero’s personality and conduct, and that ugliness would only become more evident as time wore on. If Jesus is really Lord, and the government sometimes stands in the way of Jesus’ purposes, why have a government at all? Why obey and submit to these earthly, pagan, ungodly rulers, if Jesus is really Lord?

Paul provides a rebuke to such “Christian anarchism.” Paul declares that God has all power, and therefore earthly governments exist because God has granted them the ability and power to exist (Romans 13:1-2). They have a good reason for existence: government exists to punish evil behavior (Romans 13:3-4). If a Christian is busy doing good, he or she should have little to fear from the governing authorities; therefore, to ask for them to be in subjection to governing authorities is not really asking too much, on account of wrath and conscience (Romans 13:3-5). For the same reason, tax, tribute, and honor should be given to such authorities, since their existence is justified before God (Romans 13:6-7).

While such things are said to the Roman Christians in the context of the Roman empire, it is evident from the way in which Paul speaks that the message is not limited only to such persons. What Paul says is true regarding the Christians of Rome and their relationship to the Roman Empire would be equally true for Christians living under a monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, oligarchy, or democracy. Paul says nothing about how the governing authorities obtained their power or how well they adhere to the rules or guidelines which theoretically govern that country. He does not make explicit any of the inferences derived from this passage, either to justify whatever a ruler says or to justify revolution against a government. We do well to wonder why that is.

Paul insists that Christians should be subject to the governing authorities, as does Peter in 1 Peter 2:13-17. Peter will go on to speak about slaves and how they should be subject to their masters, not just the good and gentle ones, but also those who are “froward,” unreasonable or unjust (1 Peter 2:18). Peter goes on to describe the gracious matter of suffering unjustly while doing what is good and right and holy, reminding the Christians of his time how Jesus had done the same for them (1 Peter 2:19-25).

There is quite the lesson to be learned there: in many ways, the Christian’s relationship to the government is like the Christian slave’s relationship to his master. It is for the Christian to submit no matter the type of master, save in that which is against what God has decreed (cf. Acts 5:29). The Christian is never justified in acting according to a rebellious or contrary spirit; the reason for disobedience against any earthly authority is because of obedience toward God. It is not given for the Christian to weigh the fitness of the rulers before deciding to submit to them, contrary to what some have said. It is also not for the rulers to fancy that whatever they say ought to be as if God Himself had said it, contrary to what others have said. God will judge Christians for how well they respected rulers and obeyed them, and the rulers for how well they governed according to the principles of righteousness, as can be seen from Romans 13:1-7.

In Romans 13:1-7 Paul sees a separation between Christians and their government: “you” are the Christians and “he” is the authority in the passage, and we do not see the two meet. How Christians are to relate to a government in which they have the opportunity to voice their beliefs and to shape policy is not explicitly outlined but certainly would not be in opposition to what God has revealed through Paul in terms of how Christians are to relate to any government. Christians are to show proper respect and honor for their rulers and should be subject to them, obeying the laws of the land. Whether the rulers are good and fair or immoral and unjust is irrelevant; Christians are not given the right to treat the rulers differently on the basis of their conduct. There may be times when Christians will find themselves on the wrong side of civil laws because they are obeying God; such does not justify a spirit of rebellion. In all cases of such “civil disobedience” that we find in Scripture, the Christians remained respectful of government and willingly suffered the civil consequences of their behavior. Early Christians never agitated for the overthrow of the government.

Paul could write with such indifference to the fate of any particular government because he understood that Jesus is really Lord, and the only way of salvation was through the message of the Gospel (Romans 1:16). The advancement of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God is all that is really important (Matthew 6:33). Earthly authorities are to be respected and obeyed but they are not our saviors or redeemers. Only Jesus can do that. Let us obey God in all things, including showing proper respect toward and subjection to the earthly authorities!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street. A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:1-4).

One of the more puzzling aspects of Jesus’ ministry on the earth involves His admonishment of many of those whom He healed to not proclaim what He did for them. Why would He do such things but not want them to be made known? And why is He inconsistent about it?

It is not as if the “ban” on discussing what Jesus did was permanent; after all, we read about these events in the Gospel narratives. Jesus told Peter, James, and John to not speak of His Transfiguration until after He rose from the dead (Matthew 17:9). Furthermore, Jesus told the man from whom He cast out Legion to declare to all in his house what God did for him (cf. Luke 8:38-39). What is motivating Jesus to do what He is doing?

Matthew provides us a glimpse into the logic behind Jesus’ actions in Matthew 12:15-21. Matthew tells us how Jesus healed many people, but then charged them not to make Him known (Matthew 12:15-16). Matthew then establishes that He did so in order to fulfill what was spoken of Him by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 42:1-4 (Matthew 12:17-21). But how does Isaiah 42:1-4 relate to Jesus’ admonishments?

The heart of the matter can be found in Isaiah 42:2: He will not cry, nor lift up His voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street. This does not seem to be a prophecy of Jesus on the surface; Jesus most assuredly has been active in preaching and teaching throughout Israel (cf. Matthew 4:17, 23, 5:1-7:27, etc.). Matthew, of course, is well aware of this, and yet he is certain that the prophecy does relate to Jesus.

We do well, therefore, to understand Isaiah 42:2 in terms of the “silence” He requests from those of Israel whom He heals. When we consider the entire prophecy, this makes sense: the Servant is in the process of establishing justice on the earth. He is working toward sending forth judgment in truth and victory. But He is not there yet, and there is plenty of room for confusion. If the proclamations were made too soon, the people of God would misunderstand Jesus’ purposes, convinced that He was doing what they expected out of their Messiah. They would make Him into the Messiah of their own desires as opposed to allowing Him to be the Messiah in whom God is pleased, whom God upholds.

This judgment in truth and victory comes with His death and resurrection after which all of these things can be made known and properly understood. The “silence” is necessary because of the lack of understanding of Israel, even among His own disciples (cf. Matthew 16:15-23, John 2:18-22). Through His deeds and His teachings Jesus was setting forth the context for His Kingdom which He was busy establishing; the time was not yet to have His deeds proclaimed among Israel.

Yet this was not the same story among the Gentiles. The Servant came to bring justice to the Gentiles; in Him the Gentiles would hope; the islands, to be understood as people afar off, wait for His law. Such is why He encourages the man from whom Legion was cast out to proclaim what God had done for him (cf. Luke 8:26-39): since he lived across the Sea of Galilee from Galilee, he is in the Decapolis, a mostly Gentile area, and the Gentiles are to hear of the powerful working of Jesus the Servant of God, manifest as well in Acts 10:36-38.

Jesus’ insistence on people not making Himself or His deeds known does seem strange but is a bit more understandable when considering the prophecy. Everything Jesus says and does will make sense after His death and resurrection even if it is hard to comprehend beforehand. As God’s Servant, Jesus is preparing the ground for His Kingdom, the moment when He will send forth judgment unto victory, the hope of Jew and Gentile alike. The time has come to make known to all men the teachings and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth so that all may place their trust in Him so as to obtain eternal life. Let us place our hope in Jesus’ name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

Jude would have much rather written a different letter than the one he wrote. Perhaps he wanted to speak about the hope and joy he shared with his fellow believers; maybe he wanted to remind them of the story of what Jesus had done for them and the promises of what He would do in the future. Regardless, more pressing issues were at hand.

Teachers promoting false doctrines and practices were afoot. They sought to turn God’s grace into sensuality, denying the truth regarding Jesus (Jude 1:5). They defiled the flesh on account of their vain imaginings and rejected proper authority (Jude 1:8). They reviled that which they did not understand and lived according to their “instincts” (Jude 1:10). They grumbled, were never satisfied, boasted, and sought their own advantage (Jude 1:16). And they were not afar off, leaving Christians alone; they remained in the midst of the Christians and sought to advance their ideas among them (Jude 1:12).

Many such teachers were likely advancing Gnostic ideas, professing to have “greater” and more esoteric “knowledge” of spiritual truth than can be found in the pages of Scripture. These teachings did not respect the unity of the body, soul, and spirit; they were especially dismissive of the body. Some later Gnostic groups would insist on strict discipline upon the body; other groups, however, taught that whatever one did in the body would not touch or tarnish the soul, and it became powerful justification for committing all sorts of immorality and doing whatever felt right.

This was not the same message which Jesus and the Apostles promoted. Jude felt compelled to remind the Christians of that important difference.

He encouraged the Christians to “contend” for the faith (Jude 1:3). To believe, maintain, promote, and teach the faith is not automatic; it takes effort. In the face of false doctrines and idols it will be quite the struggle to stand firm in the message of Jesus. Christians must resist the temptation to compromise the message, to distort the message through emphasizing some aspects over others, and to water it down to seem more palatable. Christians must also stand firm against the attempts by others to adapt and manipulate the faith, whether people claim to have received superior insights or deny some of the claims made regarding Jesus and the faith in Scripture.

While maintaining and promoting the faith will demand struggle, it need not demand contentiousness or ungodliness in argument. There are good reasons why Paul lists contentiousness and outbursts of anger as works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). We are to make a defense for our hope, but it must be done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). One cannot promote the Gospel with one’s words if one’s demeanor, attitude, and perhaps even conduct are more consistent with worldliness, ungodliness, and the Evil One!

Jude has good reason to exhort the Christians to contend for the faith, because it is “the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). The novel interpretations and “insights” of the Gnostics were not part of that which was delivered “once for all.” We can see the core message of the Gospel declared from the very beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:14-38; the next twenty years would show the advancement of that message first just among Jews but then also among the Gentiles. Thus the implications of the Gospel and to whom it should be promoted were clarified in those first few years, but the message remained the same (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). God did not intend to make continuous revelation regarding the Gospel and how we are to follow after Jesus; the very fact that Jesus lived for a particular period of time, died, was raised from the dead, but then ascended to the Father exemplifies this. What more can be known about the nature and character of Jesus that is not somehow already revealed by Jesus and the Apostles? What more is necessary to promote the Gospel than was necessary when Peter, Paul, and the others promoted it in the first century? If it is all about following after Jesus and to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6), what can be added to what has already been established?

The message was delivered to the saints, and these are Jude’s concern. He wants to make sure that they remain in God’s love, seeking Jesus’ mercy, and seeking to show mercy and to save others in return (Jude 1:20-23). They are to stand firm against the false teachings promoted in their midst, but they must always remember how God is the Judge, and we all remain in need of grace and mercy (cf. Romans 14:1-13, James 4:12, Jude 1:20-21).

There have always been people who have sought to distort the message of the Gospel for their own ends; there always will be. Therefore, believers must engage in the struggle to maintain, preserve, and promote the faith delivered once for all to the saints. We must not compromise it, distort it, or water it down, but we must also never betray it by using ungodly methods while struggling to defend it and advance it. Let us contend for the faith, honoring and glorifying God through our thoughts, attitudes, words, and deeds!

Ethan R. Longhenry

For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:24-26).

For people today, perhaps one of the strangest and most foreign aspects of the Old Testament is the sacrificial system. Much of Leviticus is devoted to descriptions of various animal sacrifices: what to offer, when to offer it, why to offer it, how it should be offered, and so on and so forth. Many can become quite indignant about the whole matter: why do the poor animals have to suffer? What did they do so as to deserve such a fate?

Then again, the concept of sacrificing animals before a deity is not just found in Israel; it seems that almost all ancient societies engaged in animal sacrifices before their gods. Some, like the Babylonians, did so believing the gods would be fed through the process; if they stopped making sacrificial offerings, their gods would starve! Others believed that whereas their gods had their own food, the smell of the sacrifices would lead the gods to be kindly disposed toward those offering them.

What is the point of all of these sacrifices? We might not clearly understand the idea of animal sacrifices, but we understand what “sacrifice” is. Sacrifice entails giving up something: a suffering of loss. We talk about sacrificing some time or money for a particular person or cause; we frequently hear about those who died in war as having sacrificed everything for their country.

The idea of sacrifice as suffering loss explains animal (and grain) sacrifices in the Old Testament: it represents some level of suffering loss for God. Many such sacrifices were memorial: the first of the grain harvests and the firstborn animals would be sacrificed as a way of thanking God for the blessings of life. Yet when it comes to sin offerings, the sacrifice is not to thank God but as a request for atonement and cleansing from sin (cf. Leviticus 17:11).

This sacrifice for sin was designed for the instruction of Israel: it was costly, requiring the suffering of loss of an important piece of their property (their animal), and provided a means by which Israel could understand the mechanism of atonement. The animal’s life was given so that the one offering the animal could receive atonement, or cleansing, from their sin. This is made evident in the yearly day of atonement for Israel as described in Leviticus 16:1-34.

The Hebrew author spends much time describing the limitations of the Israelite system, especially in regards to the sacrificial system. The priests who took the offerings and presented them before God were themselves imperfect; the blood of animals could not really take away sin; animals had to be continually offered (Hebrews 7:11-28, 9:1-22, 10:1-4). But then the Hebrew author explains how Jesus of Nazareth was the ideal Priest and King: He did not offer the blood of animals but His own blood; His unique sacrifice only needed to be accomplished once in order to be efficacious for all; He was perfect and sinless in life (Hebrews 7:26-28, 9:23-27). Jesus, therefore, is the ultimate sacrifice.

Jesus suffered great loss on our behalf: all the agony He experienced through His arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion were not on account of His own sin or any wrong He had done (cf. 1 Peter 2:21-25). He willingly suffered the loss of His life for those whom He loved (1 John 3:16). God the Father was willing to allow such an offering because of His great love for us (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-11).

Animal sacrifices, therefore, pointed to the challenges of mankind which God addressed powerfully through His Son Jesus. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because of what Jesus accomplished; in fact, to think to offer animals again would be rather insulting, in a sense trivializing what God has accomplished for us through the sacrifice of Jesus His Son. But just because we do not offer animal sacrifices does not mean that we should no longer sacrifice; quite the contrary! Since God has suffered so much loss for us, we should be motivated to become living sacrifices for Him (Romans 12:1). As Jesus was crucified as a sin offering to atone for our sin, so we should reckon ourselves as crucified with Christ, no longer living for ourselves, but having Christ live in and through us (Galatians 2:20). It can no longer be enough to just suffer the loss of an animal, some other prized object, money, or any other thing; we must freely give of ourselves, mind, body, and soul, for Him and His purposes (Colossians 3:17).

Jesus was the sacrifice to atone for our iniquity and to overcome our deficiencies. We did not deserve it and never will; we should be thankful and be willing to suffer the loss of all things for the Lord. Let us praise and glorify God because He has provided the necessary sacrifice for our sin, and subject ourselves and our will to His!

Ethan R. Longhenry

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who taketh in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off (Leviticus 17:10-14).

There certainly seems to be a lot of blood involved in Christianity.

Many of the popular hymns prominently feature blood; many of its uses would be considered graphic and revolting if taken literally. In song people are encouraged to hide in Jesus’ blood, or request to be drawn near to Jesus’ “bleeding side.” But by far the most common imagery is drawn from Revelation 7:13-14: the saints as having white garments after washing them in the blood of the Lamb. Such an image cannot be taken literally, as anyone who has ever attempted to get bloodstains out of white clothing can attest. Such talk of blood is not limited to song; Christians seem to always be talking about the blood of Christ and cleansing that comes from it. How could an image so graphic and almost grotesque as if understood literally become so powerful in Christianity?

We do well to consider what blood is and why it is important to the body. We have discovered that blood is one of the main transport vehicles throughout the body, bringing oxygen and nutrients to cells throughout the body while taking away carbon dioxide, toxins, and the like. The functions of blood are entirely essential to life; if blood is not flowing to and from a given body part, it will die.

The critical value of blood to life is what makes it so powerful as an image, as we see in Leviticus 17:10-14. God commands Israel to not eat blood, and does so with some vehemence. The reasoning behind the prohibition should interest us greatly in both of its dimensions: the life of flesh is in the blood, and it is given upon the altar to make atonement. Blood makes atonement by virtue of the life it represents (cf. Leviticus 17:11).

Blood, therefore, represents life. The great interest in the Bible and in song regarding the blood of Jesus is really a strong interest in the life of Jesus which was offered up and sacrificed for our sins (Hebrews 7:26-28, 9:11-26). This imagery is only possible because of the second aspect of blood as life as declared by God in Leviticus: a life can be given to atone for another life. In the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed upon the altar in order to accomplish this atonement (Leviticus 4:1-35, 17:11). Yet, as the Hebrew author demonstrates, the blood of bulls and goats could not truly atone for sin (Hebrews 10:4). The Hebrew author goes on to explain how Jesus’ life, represented by His shed blood, proved fully sufficient to atone for sin (Hebrews 10:5-18). There is no other offering of blood (thus, life) that needs to be added to what Jesus gave; thus all animal sacrifices are concluded. Jesus’ life can provide atonement and thus life for all mankind (Hebrews 7:24-26)!

Another potent image for atonement is cleanliness; that which has been ritually cleansed is pure and holy and suitable for God. In Leviticus, the holy place (the Tabernacle) and the holy people (the priests) were consecrated and made holy through the sprinkling of anointing oil and blood (Leviticus 8:1-36). This makes no sense literally; oil and blood do not get anything physically clean. But the physical actions are the means by which the spiritual reality can be established: the blood, as representing the life of the slain sin offering, is devoted to God for the atonement of sin, and thus becomes holy, communicating holiness to whatever it touches (cf. Leviticus 6:24-30). This is how blood can provide cleansing power: not on account of any physical property of blood, but through faith in God in the atonement that comes through the offering of a life for a life and the sanctification of first the offering and then the one who provided the offering.

There is, therefore, wonderful working power in the blood, particularly in the life of which the blood is the concrete representation. The power is not found in the physical property of blood, although the centrality of blood to the proper functioning of the body is what gives meaning to the imagery. The power comes from God and the means by which He provides the opportunity for atonement, or cleansing, from sin and its consequences, and the restoration of relationship with Him. When we consider the image of blood in Scripture, in song, or in preaching and teaching, let us think soberly about the life which the blood is representing, and be ever thankful for the gift of life which we enjoy, both now in the flesh and eternally in the spirit and in the resurrection thanks to Jesus and His life which He freely offered for our atonement!

Ethan R. Longhenry

“Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you” (Matthew 5:10-12).

It might seem that Jesus has left the strangest for last.

Most of Jesus’ “beatitudes” have been counter-intuitive or inconsistent with the norm. When we think of who is blessed, happy, or fortunate, the poor, those in mourning, the meek, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers do not necessarily come to mind (cf. Matthew 5:3-9). We tend to associate happiness with more material prosperity and more favorable circumstances than those. Jesus is aware of this, and such is likely a major driver of why He begins His “Sermon on the Mount” this way. He is attempting to overthrow expectations, helping people to see things in a different and fresh way, and finding the “silver lining” and the true righteousness that can be found in many unpopular positions.

But to consider those who are being persecuted for righteousness’ sake as being happy, fortunate, or blessed is extremely counter-intuitive and entirely inconsistent with the norm. To expect anyone to rejoice and be glad when they are reproached and persecuted unjustly seems extremely loony to a lot of people. It also seems entirely unjust, unfair, and difficult to swallow!

We must first consider the oddity that is persecution for doing what is right. We all have a built-in “fairness meter” governing our lives. When we do good things, we expect to receive good things in return; likewise, when we know we have done bad things, we expect bad things in return. If we face persecution and reproach, we are first likely to wonder if we have done something wrong. If we have done wrong and suffer for it, that seems about right (cf. 1 Peter 2:20). But if we are doing good, and we are standing up for love, mercy, and compassion, living righteously and a benefit to others, and yet we are reviled, persecuted, or reproached for it, we feel doubly wronged: not only are we experiencing the unpleasantness of the persecution, but it is in return for being nice!

This would become a challenge for the Christians of Asia Minor which Peter addresses throughout his first letter, particularly in 1 Peter 2:18-25; in that passage one can clearly hear the echoes of Jesus in the “Sermon on the Mount.” Jesus understands the challenge this particular principle poses for people; of all the “beatitudes,” this is the one whose message is essentially repeated twice, one time in the abstract (“blessed are they that…,” Matthew 5:10), and then again with direct application (“blessed are ye when…,” Matthew 5:11). In fact, it is the only “personalized beatitude,” directly including Jesus’ audience.

Jesus knows how persecution and reproach will come on account of living righteously for His sake, but why? He appeals to the example of the prophets that came beforehand (Matthew 5:12): in Luke 6:22-23, 26, we have the full contrast between the “blessing” of being persecuted for righteousness’ sake as the prophets experienced, and the woe befalling those of whom all speak well as the false prophets experienced.

We do well to consider the prophets. The prophets stood for God’s truth and accomplished amazing things for the people through the power of God. Elijah and Elisha both raised the dead and brought deliverance in various forms to the people of Israel (cf. 1 Kings 16:1-2 Kings 8:6). Prophets like Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel brought the message of God to Israel, exhorting the people to repent while time remained. They did not sin against the people: they did not extort people out of what was theirs, they were not persuaded by a bribe, they did not pervert justice for or against the disadvantaged or the privileged, or any such thing. Nevertheless, very few people paid them any heed. Those in Israel who were extorting from the people, accepting bribes, perverting justice toward the advantaged, and so on worked diligently to undermine these prophets and caused them great harm. Many were mistreated. Some were even killed (cf. Matthew 21:35-36). Yet, in the end, the prophets proved faithful to God, and received their reward (cf. Hebrews 11:32-38).

Such experiences were not pleasant; there are many times in Jeremiah’s writings where we can discern the prophet’s agony and emotional turmoil about the message with which he was sent, its implications, and the reactions of the people. And yet he fully trusted in God despite the actions of the people!

Why did the prophets come to such grief? The message God gave them would be fine and dandy as long as they kept it to themselves and lived their own lives by it. Yet it became a threat the minute it was proclaimed to others: it threatened the existing power systems, it threatened people’s worldviews, underlying assumptions, and much of what they clung to for comfort. It exposed the darkness and evil in their lives. God’s message was uncomfortable, and it was always easier to dismiss, harm, or kill the messenger than it was to endure what was proclaimed, take it to heart, and change.

Therefore, even though it seems counter-intuitive, we can understand how one would be persecuted, reviled, and spoken evil of for being righteous in Jesus’ name. It would be one thing if Christianity is something we keep to ourselves and only seek to apply it to our own lives. But when that life is seen by others, and proclaimed to others, it becomes a threat to existing power structures, worldviews, underlying assumptions, things which people find comfortable, and it exposes the evil and darkness in people. It remains easier to dismiss, injure, or kill the messenger than it is to heed the message, take it to heart, and change.

So how can we find joy in such events? We must be very careful about this; far too many take this principle and distort it toward ungodliness, seeking to proclaim Jesus’ message in adversarial and hostile ways, and using the inevitable “persecution” and reviling that comes as a response as the automatic justification for the behavior. We can experience persecution as easily by sanctimonious, harsh, angry, and inflammatory words and deeds as by truly living righteously, and we are deluded by the Evil One whenever we think that we are experiencing the latter despite having done the former. As in all things, Jesus is to be our example (cf. 1 Peter 2:21-25). He made a firm stand against the religious authorities but taught the regular people with compassion. He went about doing good and was condemned, beaten, and crucified for doing so. And, in the end, the joy was His, since He accomplished God’s purposes and is now the Author and Perfecter of the faith of those who come to Him (cf. Hebrews 12:1-2).

As the Hebrew author said, Jesus despised the shame (Hebrews 12:2), and He could only do that by finding the joy that could come from being persecuted and reviled. If we are humbly living before God, respectfully living and speaking God’s truth, live in righteousness and justice, and receive evil for it, we need not be ashamed. We must despise that shame, and we can only do that by recognizing how fortunate we are to be able to follow in the footsteps of the prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles.

It is no fun to experience persecution, but the reward for suffering despite speaking and living righteously and justly is great. Let us continue to place our trust in God no matter how we appear before men, despise the shame, and glorify God our Savior!

Ethan R. Longhenry

For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33a).

Satan likes to insert a question mark where God has made a period.

From the beginning, God has sought a peaceful relationship and harmony with His creation (Genesis 1:31, 2:25). Ever since, Satan has attempted to challenge what God has established, spreading confusion among mankind (cf. Genesis 3:1-6).

By all accounts, the Evil One has been quite successful. Even if we just investigate into the various groups claiming to follow Christ we find a dizzying array of differing attitudes, doctrines, and practices. Everything from the nature of God to the nature of the relationship between Christians is disputed in some way or another. In such an environment, many despair of ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. It is easy to get discouraged; it is easy to see why many believe that we will always remain in a state of confusion.

But we do well to remember what Paul told the Corinthians. It appears that the Corinthian assemblies were quite the spectacle: different people prophesying at the same time, others speaking in different languages, often with no one to interpret. An outsider could be forgiven for thinking them all quite mad (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23)! This was not what God intended with the spiritual gifts He provided through the Holy Spirit at this time; the Corinthians needed reminding that God was not a God of confusion, or instability, tumult, or commotion, but a God of peace. He remains the God of the “still, small voice,” and not of “the wind, earthquake, or fire” (1 Kings 19:11-13).

Even though the gifts all came from God, it was up to His servants the Corinthian Christians to use them properly and toward the right ends (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 14:26). His good gifts could be misdirected toward a confusing commotion that was not of the truth but of worldliness and immaturity. They could use what God had given them to strengthen and build up or to weaken and tear down.

While we do well to keep these things in mind when it comes to our assemblies today, Paul’s reasoning holds true in every aspect of our lives as Christians. God is not a God of instability, confusion, or commotion, but a God of peace, and that remains true outside of the assembly as much as within it.

God is not the author of the confusion of the modern mind, religious or secular, despite what many might claim. God made known His truth through Jesus and His Apostles (Matthew 18:18, John 8:31-32, 14:6). Part of that truth was the confession that many would sow confusion among Christians, promoting the teaching of demons, leading people astray from the truth (1 Timothy 4:1-3, 2 Timothy 4:3-5). This has never been the Lord’s intent, and it never will be. Nevertheless, He does not compel or coerce. He has given us the revelation of His message through Jesus and the Scriptures; it is up to us as to whether we will abide by His message for good or whether we will misdirect His message for selfish, immature, and improper ends.

God communicated His message so that it could be understood and followed (John 8:31-32, Romans 8:29). It is lamentable to see how effective Satan has been at getting people to question and challenge the revelation of God, vaunting their own methods and idols above the ways of the Most High. But God remains a God of peace, not confusion. His message allows us to be reconciled back to Him in sincerity, truth, and love (Romans 5:6-11). Love rejoices with the truth but cannot do so at unrighteousness (1 Corinthians 13:6), and God is love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, let us entrust ourselves to the God of love and peace, finding rest in Him, and not be tossed to and fro by the challenges, questions, and disputations which come from the author of confusion, Satan and his minions. Let us pattern our lives after the God of peace, not the author of confusion and commotion!

Ethan R. Longhenry

[Boaz] said, “Who are you?”
And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer” (Ruth 3:9).

The story of Ruth and Naomi is poignant for many reasons: the faith of a foreigner, the devotion of a daughter-in-law, God’s lovingkindness toward those who serve Him despite finding themselves in difficult circumstances, and so on. Yet one of the more mysterious aspects of the story is this matter of redemption: Ruth appeals to Boaz as a redeemer, and Boaz will successfully redeem Naomi’s property and Ruth as well. This is not some interesting yet ultimately irrelevant story, for within it we find a type of which Jesus of Nazareth will be the reality.

One of the most important matters for the ancient Israelites involved maintaining proper tribal and clan control of property in perpetuity through legitimate offspring. This was the concern of the tribe of Manasseh regarding the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36:1-12; furthermore, even though looking upon one’s brother’s wife is generally an abomination (Leviticus 18:16, 20:21), Deuteronomy 25:5-6 compels a man to take his brother’s wife to have children to inherit the property of the brother if the brother has died.

Naomi and Ruth find themselves in a most difficult predicament. The men of the family–Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, Mahlon (Ruth’s husband, Ruth 4:10) and Chilion her sons–have died in Moab (Ruth 1:3-5). While it is true that women could inherit their father’s property in the absence of male offspring (cf. Numbers 27:7-11), neither applies to Naomi or Ruth, since they are wives and not blood relatives, and, for that matter, Ruth remains a foreigner (Ruth 1:4). Elimelech’s land near Bethlehem cannot be properly claimed by them.

But Boaz is a “near kinsman,” and thus a “redeemer” according to Ruth 2:20. This means he is a male relative of Elimelech and therefore can redeem both Elimelech’s land and Ruth to provide offspring to perpetuate Elimelech’s and Mahlon’s lineage. There is a nearer relative who has the first right of redemption (Ruth 3:12-13). The legal proceedings before the elders in the gate in Ruth 4:1-10 involve this nearer relative (left unnamed) and Boaz. The nearer relative was interested in redeeming the land but not Ruth, lest he impair his own inheritance (Ruth 4:4-6). Therefore, Boaz was legally granted the opportunity to redeem Elimelech’s land as well as Ruth, solemnly declaring before the elders in the gate that he had “bought” the land of Elimelech’s family and had “bought” Ruth as his wife to raise up children to keep the lineage going (Ruth 4:9-10). Through Boaz and Ruth a son is born to Naomi, Obed (Ruth 4:17); we know Obed’s grandson quite well, for he is David who will be king of Israel (Ruth 4:22). Such is why Boaz and Ruth are mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:5.

This story helps us understand the idea of redemption and the redeemer in Scripture. Redemption involves some sort of purchase; through some process of transaction, one generally gives up something in order to obtain something else. We might redeem a certificate for its monetary value, or redeem a product with money. So it is that even though no money is transacted, Boaz must nevertheless “buy” the land of Elimelech and to “buy” Ruth in marriage, that is, to redeem them according to proper Israelite protocol, in order to protect the family’s property rights and preserve the name of the family through offspring.

As a redeemer, Boaz is a type of Christ: he comes upon two people in distress who have no legal recourse or standing, and through his compassion and lovingkindness accomplishes their deliverance in ways they would not be able to do for themselves on account of his position of privilege. So it is with Jesus: He has found us in difficult circumstances, alienated from God, unable to be reconciled back to Him by our own power on account of our sin (cf. Romans 3:20, Ephesians 2:1-3). Jesus, through His privileged position of being both God and man, the Son of God and God the Son, and on account of His lovingkindness and compassion, paid for us to be reconciled back to God through His death on the cross (Romans 5:6-11, 1 Corinthians 6:20, Galatians 3:13, 2 Peter 2:1). Through Jesus we can be reckoned as children of God; through Jesus we can receive a portion of the most important “property” or inheritance of all, eternal life (Romans 8:15-17).

It is easy for us today to automatically associate “buying” people with slavery, considering people as “property” to be used. While it remains true that we are to see ourselves as slaves of God in Christ (cf. Romans 6:16-23, 1 Corinthians 7:22), such does not mean that “purchase” should be always and automatically associated with “slavery.” We do well to remember the ever-present theme of redemption in the Bible, in terms of God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt, Ruth’s redemption by Boaz, and other similar examples, understanding how redemption is an act of grace and mercy, a gift from those in more fortunate circumstances to those in less fortunate ones. As Boaz redeemed Ruth out of his graciousness, compassion, and desire to do what was right, so God has shown us extravagant grace and mercy by allowing for our redemption through the death of His Son Jesus. Let us praise God for redemption in Jesus, and let us seek to honor and glorify His name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

“Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest” (Joshua 1:7).

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Such a line will not deviate toward any other direction. But such is really true only in ideal terms; in our reality, there is no such thing as a completely straight line. It is possible to make a line seem very straight indeed, but we cannot make a perfectly straight line. This nicely illustrates the human predicament.

God has provided a standard for living; in the old covenant, it was the Law of Moses. Ideally, Israel would hold firm to the Law, observing everything in it, not deviating at all, or, as God encouraged Joshua, and in turn Joshua the people, “to not turn from it to the right hand or to the left” (Joshua 1:7, 23:6). In the new covenant in Christ, we are to love and know God and keep His commandments, walking as Jesus walked (1 John 2:1-6). This remains the ideal.

And yet none of us can live up to that standard perfectly. Peter and Paul declared as much in regards to Israel and the Law (Acts 13:38-39, 15:10, Romans 3:20). John understands that Christians do not live up to the ideal either (1 John 1:8-2:6). If we cannot perfectly go straight, why would God provide such exhortation to Israel and to Christians today?

The ideal is not worthless or irrelevant simply because no one save Jesus has ever lived up to it perfectly. God has always understood our deficiencies as humans; such is why He established the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, and continues to grant grace and mercy through Jesus in the New Testament (cf. Leviticus, Romans 5:6-11, 8:1-39). And yet we must not become complacent or content by acknowledging our imperfection; it is easy for us to think that since we cannot live up to the ideal perfectly, we should not try! Therefore, we do well to confess that the ideal is ideal: we should be following what God says perfectly. We should walk in God’s ways without any deviation; we should go “straight” and should not go “to the right hand or to the left.” When we do deviate from God’s command, we ought to admit as much, change our minds and ways, and return to the good path (1 John 1:9). In all things we must place our trust in God and His ideal way for mankind (Hebrews 11:6)!

The image of going “straight” and not turning “to the right hand or to the left” also underscores the necessity of balance. While it remains true that many people have deviated from God’s path and purposes on account of rebellion and a desire to sin, many others have deviated from God’s path because they overemphasized certain aspects of God’s truth to the detriment of other aspects.

This proves quite easy to do; we humans easily go to extremes. We rightly see a problem with one side; it is tempting to run far to the other side in response. We see certain groups associated with certain practices; it is tempting to want to go to the other extreme so that no one would confuse “us” with “them.”

This is why it is important for us to remember that God wants us to not deviate to the right hand or to the left; truth is rarely, if ever, found in the extremes. Furthermore, there remain many aspects of the faith that are held in a sort of tension: God’s sovereignty and grace with human freedom, for instance, or the imperative to holiness with the imperative to love, mercy, and grace. The Scriptures are filled with examples of people who have gone to one extreme or another: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the “Judaizers,” the Gnostics, and so on.

God is far greater than ourselves, and His truth remains sublime (Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33-36). God has set forth His standard for the creation and all mankind; it is up to us to confess its value and make it our goal in life. Whenever we deviate from that standard, either by stumbling into some sin, or by overemphasizing certain aspects of truth to the detriment of other aspects of it, we must change our ways and seek to re-align our will to God’s. God’s ways and God’s truth remain ideally straight, firm, and balanced; we, in our sin and corruption, have turned to the right or to the left. Let us turn away from all deviations and seek to glorify God in spirit and truth in all we think, say, do, and teach!

Ethan R. Longhenry

“And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).

In Hebrew (as well as Aramaic), names mean something. God calls Abram Abraham because He will make him a “father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5). Jacob’s name involves cheating, consistent with his character and tale in Genesis (cf. Genesis 27:36). One can discern the saga among Jacob, Rachel, and Leah based upon the names given to their sons (cf. Genesis 29:31-30:24).

Jesus’ name also has meaning: as Y’shua or Yehoshua, it means “YHWH saves” or “YHWH’s salvation.” Thus the angel Gabriel charges Joseph to name the Child which Mary is carrying from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:21). His name sets the stage for the one thing with which Jesus is most often associated: “Jesus saves,” or, more properly, God saves people through Jesus. This is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Gospel message.

Accordingly the term is used frequently in “religious” language. Preachers frequently speak of “salvation.” People will often talk about the moment at which they “got saved.” Not a few spiritual songs focus on salvation and how it comes from Jesus. Since the word is so common and so frequently used, it would be natural to assume that people really have a good idea of what it means.

Yet what is salvation, really? From what are people “saved”? Why should they be “saved”? For that matter, how can a person be “saved”?

It is tempting to describe salvation in terms of another description used in the New Testament: sacrifice, redemption, or something of the sort. Yet such really does not tell us what “salvation” means or why Jesus would be named Jesus, “YHWH saves,” and not something akin to “YHWH redeems.”

This challenge is compounded by the fact that the English language also uses the idea of “saving” to describe the preservation of resources: we try to save money, save our computer files, or something like that. It is tempting for many people to think that they save money at the local big box retailer and then go to “get saved” at the local church building!

The idea of salvation in the Bible is akin to deliverance or rescue. We would do well to read in “rescue” when we read about Jesus “saving” or providing “salvation.”

The concept of salvation as rescue helps to explain what it is and why it is necessary. “Rescue” does well at communicating the difficulty of the situation in which people find themselves. After all, no one ever needs “rescuing” when they are in a pleasant situation. One only needs “rescuing” when the situation is dire: they are caught up in a natural disaster, adrift at sea, stuck in a burning house, held prisoner unjustly, or something of that sort. Very few people want to find themselves in a situation in which they would need rescuing! And so it is with humanity: Jesus came to rescue us, as the angel Gabriel says, from our sins (Matthew 1:21). Scripture shows how dire our situation is when we remain in sin: we are separated from God, hostile toward Him and toward each other, and reserved for condemnation (cf. Isaiah 59:2, Romans 6:3, Titus 3:3).

While there may be a few exceptions, in general, we do not talk about “rescue” as something we do for ourselves; if we need rescuing, it normally must come from the energies and resources of others. Thus, salvation as rescue also underscores our inability to save ourselves. We find ourselves in the dire predicament of sin, and we cannot escape through our own efforts or resources (Romans 3:20). If we will be rescued, it will be on account of the resources of God, freely given despite our unworthiness (Romans 5:6-11).

Nevertheless, in all of this, we must want to be rescued! If we do not believe that we are in any danger, we will not think that we need to be rescued. If we think that we can get ourselves out of this mess, we will not think we need rescuing. It is only when we come to the realization of the imminent spiritual danger we face and our inability to fix that problem ourselves that we prove willing to turn to God and find salvation by the rescue accomplished through Christ. God never forces anyone to be rescued/saved; God is love, and love does not insist on its own way (1 Corinthians 13:5, 1 John 4:8)! The opportunity for rescue is provided for us: Jesus died so that our sins could be forgiven. We can obtain that forgiveness, be reconciled back to God, and learn how to serve Him (Romans 5:6-11). The means of rescue is there; we just have to take advantage of it!

Salvation as rescue also nicely illustrates the “now, not yet” aspect of salvation. In the New Testament, many passages speak of salvation as a present condition (cf. Romans 10:10, 2 Corinthians 6:2), but other passages speak of salvation as obtained on the final day (cf. Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 1:5, 9). This has caused no end of consternation for many believers: how can salvation be present and yet future? When we understand salvation as “rescue,” the picture is a bit clearer. When we turn to the Lord, we are rescued from the sentence of condemnation and from the penalty of sin (cf. Romans 6:16-23). Nevertheless, we still live in the world with its many temptations to sin; we still remain in spiritual danger (1 Corinthians 5:10, Hebrews 10:26-31, 1 John 1:8-10, 2:15-17). Therefore, we await the day of our final rescue, when “full” salvation will be manifest: the day when there will no longer be any stumbling-blocks or temptations to sin, the day on which sin and death will be fully defeated and destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:22-58, Revelation 20:1-22:6).

Therefore, it is right for the Lord to be called Jesus, “YHWH saves.” Through Jesus we all can be rescued from sin and death, obtaining the victory through Him. Let us praise God in Christ for salvation, be rescued from sin, and be preserved through faith until the day when salvation is fully revealed!

Ethan R. Longhenry