The Assembly and the Christian Life
Outline | mp3

1 Peter 3:1-7: Wives and Husbands
Outline | mp3

---

1 John 4:7-11: The Treatise on Love Begins

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).

John has discussed many themes in the first four chapters of his letter: to do what is right and avoid the wrong (1 John 1:1-2:6, 3:1-10), to avoid those who teach false doctrines-- in particular, the growing number of Gnostic teachers (1 John 2:12-29, 4:1-6), and to love one another (1 John 2:7-11, 3:11-24).

Beginning in 1 John 4:7, John returns to the theme of loving one another, and thus begins his treatise on love (1 John 4:7-21). It remains one of the most compelling and beautiful passages of Scripture ever written.

The treatise seems to flow from 1 John 4:5-6 in which John demonstrates that we are of God and we know the spirit of truth. Since we are of God and should know the spirit of truth, it follows that we should love one another.

John gives a compelling reason for why we should love one another in verse 7: love is of God, and those who love are born of God and know God. In verse 8, John makes it clear that those who do not love do not know God, and this is because God is love.

This last statement is justly famous, and we must respect what John says. God is love-- it is not, "love is God." God provides us the definition and manifestation of love. That manifestation, as John makes clear, is that He sent His Son so that we might live through Him and to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:8-9). Such love is not selfishly motivated or seeking one's own gain but is entirely and thoroughly devoted to the needs of those whom are loved (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8). Furthermore, it is not as if we deserved this love or had acted becomingly-- instead, we all were weak, sinful, and thoroughly undeserving of God's love, mercy, or grace (cf. Romans 5:5-11). This is why love is in "this"-- it is not that we have loved God, but in that God has loved us. It makes sense for us to love God, just as it makes sense for children to love parents: God has given us so much, and our love is in response to His gifts. But there is no similar explanation for God's love toward us.

Therefore, if we seek to understand love, we look to God and see how He has commended His love toward us. He provided us with the creation and the blessings of life (cf. Genesis 1:1-2:4). Even though we sinned, He was willing to suffer the loss necessary for our reconciliation so that we might live toward Him. Everything God has ever done or will ever do flows from His love, be it His love for humans, for justice, or for other godly and wholesome attributes.

It is not surprising, then, for John to uphold love as the most excellent virtue and the ultimate standard (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:13). Love and the knowledge of God are mutually consistent; but if one does not have love, one clearly does not know God, for love undergirds everything for which God stands and represents. Love is of God, because He provides the definition for seeking the best interest of others.

John then sets forth the challenge for all of us in verse 11: if God has so loved us, we should love one another. This is entirely sensible-- after all, we seek to be godly people, and if God is love, we must be people marked by love!

Yet the challenge remains. We humans find it easy to love those who love us and who do good for us (cf. Matthew 5:46-47). That is why it is comparatively easy for us to love God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ when we recognize just how much They have done on our behalf and for our good. But it is not enough to just love those who love us. We must also love those who would do us harm and evil (cf. Matthew 5:43-45), just as God loved us when we were most unlovable.

Yes, John says that our love should be for "one another," and in the most limited sense, that refers to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. But the same love must be shown to our "neighbor" (cf. Romans 13:8-11), and Jesus makes it clear in Luke 10:25-37 that "our neighbor" ought to be anyone and everyone. We must remember that John is setting God forth as the ultimate demonstration and manifestation of love, and we must pattern our lives after Him. He has loved without partiality, seeking the best for all people according to His righteousness, justice, truth, and mercy (cf. Romans 5:5-11, 6:1-23). Let us seek to do the same, and seek the best interest for everyone in our lives!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Greetings, everyone.

Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

I recognize that I haven't posted a whole lot recently. That seems to be the new normal. Busy, busy, busy.

We switched phone providers and now have BlackBerrys. As if I am not on the Internet enough, I know. But it is useful. It's like I've attained yuppiehood. I'm still not that into texting and I find thumb typing on obnoxiously small keys tiresome.

I went to the dentist today for the first time in 5 years. I actually have cavities for the first time in my life-- two small ones, one in each of my back bottom teeth. I'll have to get them filled in the somewhat near future, but since my dental insurance actually pays for things, it won't be that big of a deal. Tomorrow my wife and daughters go and see said dentist. It's the first time the girls have seen a dentist. Yes, that probably makes me a bad parent. But hey-- this is the first time in my adult life I have been able to get dental insurance on top of health insurance and afford it.

In other news, I should be reading more than I am, but since I'm carrying on three different sets of studies (weekday Hebrew/Greek studies, now in Psalms; Galatians for adult Bible class; Mark for nursing home), it's fairly understandable. I'm extremely behind with Julianna in history, but trying to make that up a little bit.

Actually, I feel behind with pretty much everything except the standard weekly work. And I'm irritated with my old health insurance company, tire of even the effort necessary in handling finances, and really not looking forward to taxes.

It's a normal February! :D

---

Book reading update.

I have finished one book-- The Forgiveness Solution by Philip Friedman. The only reason I have this book is because I won it through LibraryThing Early Reviewers.

The author discusses how, in his estimation, true forgiveness of self and others is critical for complete wholeness. Therefore, the book is devoted to tests analyzing where one stands in the forgiveness spectrum, and then describes various exercises through which one can be at ease in forgiving self and others. The exercises include guided imagery, self-expression, meditation, and pressure points.

The "new age" part of the book would be off-putting to many people-- the secularists for believing in something beyond the material, and the religious for being a bit Eastern in viewpoint. On the other hand, I've begun in general to wonder regarding the existence of spiritual power/force/energy and how that may relate to our physical world based on study/experience. The pressure point thing, while making one look rather stupid if others are present, does have a form of relaxing power.

Unfortunately, the author comes at many things in the exact opposite way than he should. One of his affirmations involves the idea that we are all really, deep down, innocent creatures, when the Bible would say that we are all really, deep down, guilty creatures. We're unified not in innocence but guilt.

Nevertheless, the power of forgiveness and the golden rule pervade the book, and the book provides methodologies that may be of value in accomplishing forgiveness and the golden rule in life. But there's a lot of ridiculousness in the book too.

Now reading: The Poetry of Prayer: Tehillim in Tefillah by Rabbi Avi Baumol. Yes, it's an early review book, but this comes from the publisher. This is what happens when you (a) have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Judaism and (b) are willing to do book reviews. But hey, I'm studying in Psalms, and such a perspective is interesting in terms of history of interpretation if nothing else.

---

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.

ELDV

If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:12).

For some time I have defended the Christian's ability to vote and to thus participate in the political domain as a liberty-- taking concrete action to promote peace and tranquility for the Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I have also established that the choice to vote for a particular political candidate is also a matter of liberty, based on the individual believer's sober judgment in regards to a given politician and their belief as to whether he or she would best uphold peace and tranquility for the Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I, myself, have participated in such processes.

Nevertheless, on the basis of further study and examination of the current political climate, the ways in which Christians are participating in the political realm, and the impact of all such things on the health and promotion of the Kingdom, I feel compelled to now recant of my participation in the political processes of the United States and to eschew any such future participation for the sake of promoting God's Kingdom, and I would like for my fellow believers to soberly consider their own participation in this process and its implications and consequences.

As it is written,

Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1).

Participation in the political realm easily turns into, if nothing else, a "weight," and can also turn into "sin," and all too often hinders our effectiveness in promoting God's Kingdom because of dual loyalties.

As Jesus indicated in regards to God and Mammon in Matthew 6:24, "no man can serve two masters." This is no less true in the political realm. It is easy to get passionately involved in politics and voting and find oneself in morally hazardous terrain.

I feel compelled to establish first and foremost that politicians and the political systems boast of greater power and effectiveness than they can deliver, and Christians should not be fooled into believing their claims. There is no effective deliverance or salvation from evil on account of political action. God has made it very clear how people are saved:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

For a time in human history, God worked through a particular physical nation, Israel. The new covenant in Christ, however, stands as a clear repudiation of the idea that one particular earthly nation can be "God's nation," for God has people who belong to Him from many nations (John 18:36, Galatians 3:28). In the new covenant, salvation and deliverance does not come through acts of legislation or government mandates-- it can only come through the promotion and acceptance of the Gospel of Christ!

A country could theoretically have God's laws enshrined as their own laws, but such is never a guarantee that people are following those laws. Furthermore, how can there be any guarantee that legislation leads people to the knowledge of God in Christ? What would be gained if all the laws of the land were made to conform to God's laws, but not a soul was converted in the process? It would all be to no avail!

There are no commands, examples, or inferences in the New Testament that would lead us to believe that God saves anyone through the political process. There are no guidelines in the New Testament for establishing a "Christian nation." Furthermore, there is no evidence from the New Testament that any of the believers of the day-- Jesus, the Apostles, or anyone else-- depended upon or worked through the political system to advance God's purposes. The closest example we have is Paul using his Roman citizenship to avoid beatings and to be granted an audience with Caesar, a moment he intended to use to promote the Gospel (cf. Acts 22:25-29, 23:11, 25:10-11).

Therefore, any belief that God's purposes are going to be best served by devoting our efforts and resources to the political sphere are misguided. Politics are part of this world that is declared vanity by the Preacher (Ecclesiastes 1:2), and politics are indeed vanity. Should we devote our time, energy, and resources to vanity and striving after wind or after the spiritual treasures which will not perish (cf. Matthew 6:19-20)?

Most will declare that the Kingdom should come first, of course, but then that there is no difficulty also doing what one can in the political realm to advance God's purposes.

But we must ask the question-- can God's purposes ever be really advanced in the political realm, and is it really profitable to throw oneself into the political sphere?

Politics is a dirty endeavor, full of compromises and moral hazards. And when people with great moral integrity who seek to stand for God's values begin to enmesh themselves with politics, the darkness far too often proves too strong for the light!

Politics is not for the truly principled, and participation in the political realm as is invites moral compromise. Most recognize that voting ends up being choosing the "lesser of two evils," but notice that means that we are choosing an evil!

And herein is the inconsistency in political participation. There are a few people who stand by their integrity and participate in politics: they will only vote for candidates who have a fully Biblical stance on morality. But if you vote for anyone from the two major parties, you are by necessity compromising moral stances, because neither political party upholds God's system of morality.

The most damaging element of politics that I fear is causing great pain for the Kingdom involves party ideology. Too many Christians seem more than willing to align themselves with a given political party and to defend and justify whatever that party happens to do while excoriating and lambasting the other party no matter what they may do.

If a candidate of the opposing party has public moral failings, those are highlighted and condemned. But if a candidate from the "acceptable" party has public moral failings, such is ignored, minimized, or blunted with talk of forgiveness and the like.

If the time is convenient to push regarding a "moral" argument, any candidate who does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument is accursed. But if there are other, more pressing political issues, even a candidate from the "acceptable" party who does not hold to that particular "moral" argument can be justified. Furthermore, if one were to vote for a candidate from the "other" party who does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument, such is a sin, but if one votes for a candidate from the "acceptable" party who also does not accept the truth regarding that "moral" argument, it is understood that one voted for their other positions and not for their position on that "moral" argument.

Whatever political shenanigans the "other" party engages in shows how corrupt, evil, and debased they are, but the political shenanigans of the "acceptable" party are always justifiable.

Nothing evil can be said about candidates from the "acceptable" party, but it is always open season on the "other" party.

The people in the "other" party are always out for the destruction of everything we hold dear, while the people in the "acceptable" party always act sincerely in what they believe to be the best interest of this nation.

These types of attitudes and actions are hypocritical to the extreme and shameful. They indicate just how far politics can go in dividing people and alienating people. I am ashamed to say that I myself have participated at times in such arguments and have at times spoken improperly to my fellow brethren regarding such profitless and worthless disputations, and for that I have repented and continue to repent.

Consider what the New Testament says in contrast to what happens today.

Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men (Romans 12:17).

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (1 Peter 2:17).

God says that we should take thought for what is honorable in the sight of all and that we should honor all men. If we engage in partisan character attacks and speak evilly of people with whom we disagree politically, are we acting in honorable ways? Do we show that we honor all men, even those with political opinions with which we differ, through such discussions and statements?

Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all men (Titus 3:1-2).

Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings (1 Peter 2:1).

God also makes evident that we are to not speak evil of anyone, and yet it seems to be par for the course to assume that the people in power with whom we disagree clearly have evil intentions. The same benefit of the doubt that are given to one group are never given to others.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4:8).

Paul here emphasizes the importance of devoting our minds to the things that are good and pleasing. He indicates that we must take thought as to what we take into ourselves in terms of information and where we obtain that information. There are many venues of information out there whose purpose is to promote a certain worldview and to alienate and malign any other perspective. All kinds of form of manipulation are used to distort reality in order to conform to the narrative of choice. This is done from both sides of the political spectrum, but as Christians, we should say enough, and no longer allow ourselves to be filled with messages that divide, alienate, and do not lead to peace!

Are we entirely ignorant of what the great push toward political participation has done to the Kingdom? Do we not see how our conduct among the Gentiles has been less than honorable because we have allowed ourselves to be wrapped into this pointless, futile contest of wills?

Regardless of where you live in America, odds are that between 45-65% of the population does not agree with your political preference, if you have gone along with one of the two major parties. If we push political messages, however consciously or unconsciously, are we not hindering our effectiveness in reaching 45-65% of those around us with the message that is really important?

What if the intense political participation that is manifest in Bible class discussions, stray comments from the pulpit, bulletin articles, Facebook statuses, blog posts, and the like, were responsible for pushing some people away from the Gospel message? How should we feel if we are allowing something as trivial and as unimportant as politics to get in the way from them learning of the truth of God?

I am sure that if such comments were made in regards to passion regarding sports teams or food preferences or some other such thing, we would all recognize how damaging that would be. How is politics any different?

If the political climate presents constant temptation to demonize my fellow man because of his different political beliefs, how is that going to help me break down barriers and to show him the love of Christ?

If I am pushing a particular political agenda, and the person with whom I am trying to show the Gospel already has a preconceived notion of the way Christians are based on that political agenda, is that political agenda going to assist or hinder my work?

If all the energy, time, money, and other resources that Christians expend in the political arena were redirected toward the promotion of the Gospel of Christ and the demonstration of love and compassion for our fellow man, how much further could Christ's cause be advanced?

I want to be clear: I am not condemning anyone for participating in the political process if they so choose. That remains a liberty even if I no longer practice it. This does not mean that I will cease from ever speaking about politics, especially when it comes to the intersection of politics and the Kingdom. I also recognize that many are able to keep their political views and their religious views separate, do not make a big deal about their political views, and certainly do not make their political views tests of fellowship, and for such brethren I am thankful.

Nevertheless, I have some questions that I believe merit consideration.

Has any soul been saved because of Christian participation in the political realm?

How, in any measurable spiritual way, has the Kingdom of God been advanced by Christian participation in the political realm?

How much damage has been done to the Kingdom by Christians participating in the political realm and getting caught up in evil surmisings, dishonorable words and actions, and antagonism toward people of a different political persuasion?

How many souls have been alienated from the commonwealth of Christ on account of the forceful presentation of the political opinions of Christians?

How has politics built up and encouraged the Lord's Body? In how many ways have politics instead torn down and distressed the Lord's Body?

If there is so much lost because of political participation, and so little gained, how can it ever be considered profitable for Christians to engage in it?

I have considered these questions and I cannot help but decide that political participation is not profitable when it comes to advancing the agenda of the Lord of all. Our fight is not with Democrats or Republicans or Independents or even with al-Qaeda or Iraq or terrorists or homosexuals or atheists-- Paul makes it clear that our fight is not with flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). Instead, our fight is with "the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). And those powers of darkness are well-served by Christians expending their energy fighting the futile fight of politics and losing ground in the good, necessary, and eternally consequent fight.

ELDV

Greetings, everyone.

Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

We're still trying to get back to some sense of routine and something some people call "normal," although I believe "crazy and frenetic" is really my "normal." But that's alright. :)

It's been a week full of financial situations with which to deal, work that needed done, and other such things. In general, nothing "exciting" to report. But I did promise a book review post...so here it is.

---

Mega book reading update.

In the last book reading post I noted that I was reading From Gravel to Glory by Gina Calvert and The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. So we might as well begin there. :)

From Gravel to Glory represents Calvert's personal story told according to the image of Christian as Temple. The core message of the book-- learning to trust God and renounce self in an authentic and real way, having suffered all kinds of difficulties and coming to terms with one's own failings-- is sound.

I can't say a whole lot when it comes to the rest of the book. It seems rather evident that Calvert and her husband were members of the church who have theologically drifted into Evangelicalism. Evangelical doctrines of the Spirit and faith as God's gift are explicitly presented. There are also matters of personal discomfort. While I would not say that there is anything inherently wrong with expanding on Biblical metaphors and making whole allegories about them, it is quite easy to read those allegories back into the text when they do not belong there. And then there is the matter of quoting from a dizzying number of translations and paraphrases without a lot of explanation. I recognize that it has become the popular thing to do among Evangelicals, but in my estimation, it at best is confusing and at worst seems to be hiding some kind of agenda, as if there is an attempt to pull one over on the reader. I don't think that such is Calvert's intention, but I also don't see the value in quoting in a bunch of translations. Pick one and then explain whatever elements of the text you feel need explaining; own up to the explanations. If you think that a given point (that is legitimately in the original text) is made more clear in a different translation, quote it and explain why.

Anyway. In the end, no recommendation either way.

The Story of Philosophy was my foray into trying to get a little bit of a better picture of the history of philosophy after the Romans. Durant wrote it toward the beginning of the twentieth century, and it is full of post-Enlightenment triumphalism that was somehow not even depressed by WWI but was seriously questioned after WWII. Durant tells the story of philosophy by focusing on different philosophers themselves-- Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, Spencer, Nietzsche, and a few European and American philosophers of his own age.

As an introduction to their philosophies Durant does quite well. I found his attitude towards Christianity and Judaism irritating, as if the influence of Judeo-Christian values did nothing to enhance the philosophy of the western world. One can also easily tell where Durant's sympathies lay. Regardless, it is an interesting book that is useful if you want to get a basic idea of where philosophy has gone and why it has done so.

In theory, the current study I am doing is on the church-- its history and books by authors in the church. To that end I finished three books by Robertson Whiteside: The Whiteside-Clark Discussion, Doctrinal Discourses, and The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy.

The Whiteside-Clark Discussion was a printing of a discussion in the Gospel Advocate regarding the legitimacy of Bible classes. The discussion represented both sides quite well. Clark's arguments did not really hold water and his inconsistency was apparent. Whiteside's arguments, on the whole, were decent, but I wished that he would have made more of Acts 2:42 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in justifying having a period of time for a collective studying of Scripture.

Doctrinal Discourses represented a collection of Whiteside's articles and treatises put together posthumously by his daughter Inys. She included plenty of articles on the Spirit, faith, matters of speech, discussions of various passages, and the like. She found so much on the subject of premillennialism that she had those articles published as a separate book, The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy. These books reflect Whiteside the Bible scholar, and on the whole, he handled Scripture very well, and made very good arguments. There will be some arguments with which the reader will disagree, and many times it would have been nice if Whiteside had been less dogmatic, but his insights and willingness to recognize the distinction between what Scripture actually says and that which we impose on it are valuable indeed. These resources are beneficial for all, especially since Truth Bookstore is selling all three for a dollar each (click on the links above)!

Now I am reading some early review books I've received through LibraryThing. The first is Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text: Numbers. About two years ago I had received the Leviticus edition of this work, and I was thankful to receive Numbers also. It would be great to also win Deuteronomy when it comes out later this year. :D

Numbers was quite similar to Leviticus: some discussions were different and there were a lot more explanatory expansions regarding many questions that come up in Numbers. If you're doing heavy research into one or more of the books of the Pentateuch, the various volumes in this series are worth considering. They do well at presenting not just the Targum Onkelos text and its various text critical issues but also the history of interpretation of the text in Jewish Rabbinic tradition.

Next I am reading The Forgiveness Solution: The Whole Body Rx for Finding True Happiness, Abundant Love, and Inner Peace by Philip Friedman, which is another early review book. I will be a good boy and reserve judgment until after I read the book. :D

---

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.

ELDV