Tag: Christianity

Promises and Redemption (Lev. 26-27)

Chapter twenty-six begins by invoking three of the first five of the Ten Commandments. One might say that Moses is going back to basics. By verse three onward, Moses highlights the blessings and curses for Israel if they keep or violate the Law. This closely resembles Deuteronomy 28. The “engraved stone” of verse two would have been a paving stone with a mosaic design set in the floor of a sanctuary. The threat of beasts of prey in the land, such as lions and bears, would pose no threat to the population (26:6). This reminds the reader of how young David had to learn to combat lions to protect the flock. God promising to multiply them (26:9) harkens back to creation and the royal commission given to humanity (Gen. 1:28). The crux of all of Leviticus is spelled out in 26:11–12. While Israel was previously under a yoke of burdensome labor, God has broken it so that they can now stand upright (26:13). 

Moses shifts from the blessings to curses at 26:14–15. In the following verses, we see the antithesis of verse nine (26:15–17). The simile in 26:19 is a common feature of Assyrian curses and appears also in Deuteronomy 28:23. All of the curses that God sends to Israel if they fail to keep the covenant are meant to be curative of that attitude (26:23–24), but if they persist, God’s judgment will grow more severe. God will once more pause to see if Israel repents, then He will move towards wrath (29:27–28). Even if He goes to the most extreme measure, He will still save them as He has from Egypt (29:44–45). A covenant is both a promise and a threat, and Moses reminds us at the end of this section that each party to the covenant has obligations to the other. 

The final chapter has been studied and attempted to be interpreted within the whole of the book. Many commentators treat it as an appendix to the book. It focuses on voluntary offerings and on the tabernacle’s taxed obligations. However, the book’s final line wraps it up. It’s seen as a formal conclusion that encompasses the whole book while preparing us for Numbers. Leviticus began at the Tent of Meeting and migrated to Sinai. Numbers begin in the wilderness. 

Priestly Regulations and the Levitical Calendar (Lev. 21-25)

Since God intended for Israel not to live as the Egyptians or Canaanites, beginning chapter eighteen with such a plea and ending chapter twenty with it once more, the next things that come are a reflection of that point. Canaanite religion had a cult devoted to the dead. Again, anything linked with death is seen as unclean, so a corpse might have been thought of as intrinsically contaminating. Baldness was associated with pagan mourning rites, so it was to be avoided. Nearing this was a prohibition against cutting the flesh. Disfigurements of any kind were off limits. The High Priest is prohibited from contact with corpses altogether, while priests have exceptions. As we go on, it seems unfair that certain people would be prohibited from the Lord, but we must assume that as an animal without blemish is offered, so is the offerer to be without blemish. However, they may partake of the sacrifice. 

Should a priest be in a state of uncleanness and come in contact with sacred things offered, the priest risks profaning God’s name. It can cost him his priestly privileges. The final verse (v. 15) closes the section as the chapter began: “they shall not profane the holy offerings.” The remainder of the chapter emphasizes acceptable and unacceptable offerings. A parallel can be to our worship. Do we offer what’s acceptable to God or not? Could it be said that in our worship, we, like Nadab and Abihu, offer “strange fire?” Rather than a free-for-all, we have commandments and examples as to how the early church worshiped the Lord. If there were anything unacceptable to Him, we would see it pointed out in some way (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27–30; Matt. 22:11). 

The calendar begins with the Sabbath, leading us to believe that failing to observe these holidays is equivalent to breaking the Sabbath. These are called “holy convocations” (23:4) because there was a call to worship, if you will. Passover is highlighted as a sacred day, and this was to remind them that they were once slaves in Egypt and God delivered them. Of their produce, the firstfruit was to be given to the priests. One meaning behind this was the law of the firstfruits in that what they had was because God provided for them (cf. Exod. 23:19). The Feast of Weeks is Pentecost because it comes fifty days after Passover. This celebrated the harvest God gave. The Feast of Trumpets has been understood as having God take note of Israel through the horn blasts. The Day of Atonement, we have already noted. The Feast of Tabernacles remembers the wandering in the wilderness. Only after this last feast are they told to rejoice before the Lord for a week. This would have occurred after the final harvest of the agricultural year. 

Chapter twenty-four begins with tabernacle matters, including the light and the bread. In many cults, food was placed out for the deity to avoid being treated similarly; to avoid this, it was placed outside the holy of holies, and the priests were to consume it the following Sabbath. Frankincense is a resin and might be transparent in appearance, but it’s to be burned as a token for the bread offering. Next, we switch to a narrative where two men are in a dispute, and one uses the Lord’s name in vain. Apparently, the one who did so has an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother. If you notice in verse eleven, “Of the Lord” is italicized, which means it’s implied and not actually in the text. The scribal community that preserved the text might have found it difficult to actually place YHVH in the text since the usage is one of vilification. The names that follow read, “His mother’s name was Retribution, the daughter of Law-suit, of the tribe of Judgment.” Perhaps because God orders capital punishment, He doesn’t wish for this to be seen as giving license to just take life on every whim (cf. Exod. 21:23–25). 

Chapter twenty-five begins by reminding us that all of this is occurring at Mount Sinai, which is situated from Exodus 19 onward. The end of this chapter coincides with God seemingly announcing himself as their king, and in the ancient world, when a king began his reign, he often freed slaves. At this point, Israel is officially a free people, but a vassal to God. By verse ten, they were to proclaim “liberty” throughout the land. The actual term means “release,” which refers to a moratorium on debts and indeture. God promises to give Israel such a harvest that they can Sabbath on the year of Jubilee (25:21). Land that was used as collateral is obliged to be sold back to the original owner or the nearest kinsman. An idiom is used in verse thirty-five: “falls into poverty” is literally “his hand buckle under you.” Hand is another way of referring to a person’s power, so economic collapse may be in mind. God reminds them that they aren’t to treat one another as slaves, because they are all “slaves” of God (25:42) and are not to be treated as they were in Egypt. While there was a Sabbath year every seven years, a Jubilee was every fifty years. A person would celebrate at least one Jubilee in their lifetime. 

Moral Purity (Lev. 18-20)

This section (Lev. 18–20) begins with the declaration at the beginning of a set of legal injunctions. It’s as if God is saying, “By the authority vested in me as your sovereign, you shall or shall not.” What sets this apart is the comparison between Egypt and Canaan. How they live, you are not to live, so we can suppose that what follows is an indictment of those nations. We know that sibling marriages occurred in the royal houses of Egypt. As to the rest, it may hinge on the polytheistic nature of the areas that led to such license. God emphasizes that these are their “ordinances,” and at the end of the chapter, he enjoins them to follow his instead. The term translated “ordinances” is the same word translated as “statutes” in verse five. Statutes may be a better translation of the Hebrew term because its primary sense is “things inscribed.” Beginning in verse six, “None of you” should be translated as “no man” because that’s the verbiage, and it can be inferred that the man takes the initiative in such acts. The only exception here is in verse twenty-three, where the woman engages in bestiality.  

Noted among the various prohibited relations is the fact that many patriarchs did what the law says not to do. Jacob married two sisters; Abraham says Sarah is a sister (albeit half), and David’s daughter Tamar thinks her father can arrange a marriage with her brother, Amnon. Of course, the patriarchs can’t be held to the standard since it didn’t exist when they were alive; David lived afterwards. The Law, however, now rectifies that. 

Sandwiched between chapters eighteen and twenty, chapter nineteen seems out of place. However, the understanding is that what God asks of them is juxtaposed with the nations of Egypt and Canaan. Whereas the other two chapters appear to revolve around perverse negatives, chapter nineteen presents positives for a person to do to remain pleasing to God. Verse three begins a paraphrase of the Ten Commandments. Since they would have been an agricultural economy, the edges of their fields and what they dropped would have been like a tax for the poor. We see this vividly exercised in the book of Ruth. The same verbiage is used in verse twenty-seven. The likely prohibition there concerns pagan funerary customs. 

There are a few key words throughout these chapters worth noting. One is “abomination,” and it’s attributed to male homosexual relations (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). This term appears several times throughout Lev. 18:26–30. This causes Israel to be impure and the land nauseous. By not doing this, Israel will distinguish itself from the inhabitants of the land. This term is elsewhere attributed to idolatry (Deut. 12:31; 13:15), false weights (Deut. 25:13–16), transvestism (Deut. 22:5), and remarrying a divorced wife (Deut. 24:4). 

Another term we see is “wickedness.” It’s used in relations with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 18:17; 20:14). It’s also employed in one prostituting her own daughter (Lev. 19:29). What’s somewhat surprising is that a word meaning “kindness” is used as a homonym. It’s translated as “wicked thing” in Lev. 20:17, but it carries the meaning of “disgrace” or “shame” (cf. Prov. 25:9–10). A final term is “perversion” (Lev. 18:23). Its root means “to mix,” so here it’s the act of interspecies mating (Lev. 20:12). Closing the section is another reference, as it began: don’t do as the nations do (Lev. 20:23–25). This uses language similar to that in chapter 11 regarding pure and impure animals. 

Ritual Purity (Lev. 11-15)

Moses explains ways that make one unclean and how to remedy that. He begins with land animals. Though the term is translated “earth” in verse two, what follows makes it clear that he is referring to land animals. Much of what we read about dietary practices appears in Deuteronomy 14. These two sections differ beginning in verse thirty-one. Before we get ahead of ourselves, we’ll note that after land animals, he turns to those in the water, followed by those of the air, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. The prohibition of pork among the Israelites is somewhat unique to them. Archaeological evidence shows a smaller number of pork bones dating to the second millennium BC in the Eastern part of Canaan. This proves that the taboo was observed at least that early. In other parts of Canaan, pork bones are plentiful. Later, Isaiah would associate the consumption of pork with idolatry (Is. 66:17). These dietary laws make a statement about Israel within the created order. They separate themselves from everyone else by this. Connected to impurity is death (11:24). Since this isn’t the state in which God envisioned humanity, to contact such renders a person unclean. Concluding chapter eleven is a call to holiness. The term translated “to distinguish” in 11:47 is the term used in the creation account (Gen. 1:6–7). Also, the phrase, “according to its kind in this chapter is also used in the creation account. In the hierarchy of creation, Israelites were to divide themselves between the unclean and the clean. 

The notion that the blood of childbirth was impure was widespread in antiquity. The Hittites and Greeks held the same belief. The loss of blood was associated with death. All in all, she is prohibited from sacred things and places for forty days. This number is doubled if she bears a daughter. There’s no rationale as to why that is. A better rendering of the offering she should bring should be “offense” and not “sin” (12:6). Moving on, leprosy is addressed in chapter thirteen in broad terms and not very specifically. The phrase “leprous sore” in 13:3 is, in more modern translations, rendered as a “skin blanch.” That’s to say a loss of pigmentation. Once more, there’s an association with death. The quarantining of a leprous person, or anyone unclean, was for medicinal purposes in the case of transmission. It also set apart death from life; uncleanness from cleanness. 

Notice at the beginning of chapter fourteen that the leper has been put out of the camp (14:3). The life of a leper once declared as such was isolating in many ways. On the one hand, in the previous chapter, the leper was to cover their mouth and shout that they were unclean if another person came near them. Additionally, they were ostracized from society. This is another theme of exile: exile from Eden, the scapegoat sent into the desert, exile from the Promised Land, etc. Anytime you read about living water, it refers to running water, such as a river or stream. This water carried the blood, and, hence, impurity, away from the camp. The living bird sent to the open country mirrors the scapegoat in taking away the transgressions from the camp. The reason leprosy is associated with guilt is likely because it was thought of as a punishment for some transgression (cf. Num. 12:10–15; 2 Chron. 26:16–21). Once again, we see blood and oil used together in cleansing (14:17). 

Chapter fifteen is primarily concerned with bodily discharges of various types. This can also be conveyed through secondary contact, as noted in verses four and nine. Once more in verse fifteen, an offense offering should be thought of rather than a sin offering. The contaminated person isn’t sinning by having this, but he is unclean because of it. While these instructions are primarily for Levites and priests, the whole point is to ensure they don’t enter the sacred space of the tabernacle in a way that would invite God’s wrath against them. This also extends to the average Israelite, who brings various sacrifices at the prescribed times. 

The Various Sacrifices and Their Administration (Lev. 1-7)

Leviticus chapters 1–7 are about the various sacrifices that are offered to cover one’s sins. It’s a constant reminder of both God’s grace and justice. He wants to forgive, but punishment must be meted out. The animals that die take the place of the sinner, and this has been the case since the fall. When Adam and Eve sinned, they made garments for themselves from fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). The term there, translated as “coverings,” literally means “loincloths.” Later in that chapter, God made coats of skin (Gen. 3:21). A sacrifice was necessary to “cover” humanity’s sins. Hence, this practice in the tabernacle is a continuation of the first covering of sin. 

Exodus concludes with Moses’ inability to enter the tabernacle because of God’s glory. Leviticus begins with God calling Moses from the tabernacle. The first chapter details the burnt offering, which was the offering of a whole animal. If a person were affluent enough, they would offer a bull. If not, a goat; the most humble offering was turtledoves and pigeons. After Jesus was circumcised, Mary and Joseph presented the most humble offering they could (Luke 2:24), indicating her lowly station in life. In chapter two, grain offerings are detailed. Even if a person did not have livestock, they were still allowed to present a sacrifice. The term translated as “grain offering” has the primary meaning of “a tributary payment,” suggesting that the offerer was a vassal of God. They were to be presented with salt (Lev. 2:13). On the one hand, salt made food palatable (Job 6:6). Still, it was also a sign of the perpetuity of a covenant (Num. 18:19). This may have been what Jesus had in mind when he called his disciples “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13). 

The peace offering (Lev. 3) is a way to surrender to God since sin puts a person in a state of hostility to God (Rom. 5:10–11). By the fourth chapter, a new category of sacrifices begins, with the first being the sin offering. This was offered to expunge the effects of an inadvertent sin, also called the sin of omission.  This sacrifice is communal and also individual (Lev. 4:13, 22, 27). The trespass offerings of chapter five move beyond unintentional to intentional. Confession accompanies this offering (Lev. 5:5). After this, we return to unintentional (Lev. 5:14, 17) sins towards holy relics. This is a restitutional offering. It also extends to other people and returns to intentions (Lev. 6). Next, the Lord gives the various laws regarding the respective sacrifices and how they are to be carried out by the priests. One stipulation is that no blood or fat is to be consumed (Lev. 7:22–27; cf. Acts 15:20). 

Intro to 1 Peter

Writing from Rome (which he calls “Babylon” in 5:13), along with John, Mark, Peter addresses a network of churches that comprises modern-day Turkey. Early church writers made explicit citations of 1 Peter as early as the 90s AD, through to the latter part of the second century, which attests to the authority of the letter as well as its apostolicity. How the gospel came to be in this area isn’t altogether clear, but we know that Jewish believers from some of these areas were present on Pentecost (Acts 2:8–11). Additionally, Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54) established Roman colonies in these regions.

One central question is who the audience was: Jewish, Gentile, or both. The descriptor of “pilgrims of the Dispersion” was typically how Jewish exiles from Judea were addressed (cf. James 1:1). There are also further descriptors such as “Sarah’s children” (1 Peter 3:6), “God’s elect” (1 Peter 1:1, 2, 4, 9) and those called to holiness (1 Peter 1:15–16). They are also contrasted with Gentiles (1 Peter 2:12; 4:3), but by this time, all Christians might have been considered as one with Jewish believers, and the Gentiles were non-Christians. However, we also know that Peter was an apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:9), and readers from Eusebius in the fourth century to John Calvin agree that the primary audience is Jewish Christians. Still, some descriptors indicate pagans were among the audience (1 Peter 1:14, 18; 2:9–10, 25; 4:3), but prophetic language sometimes regarded apostate Israelites as pagans. We can assume there’s a mixture and that this letter would not have been sectarian or racially distinguishing between believers in Jesus (cf. Rom. 8:29–30).

The entirety of the letter addresses their suffering, which was likely caused by social scorn, shaming, slander, and stigma. They were likely viewed as social deviants and may have faced verbal and physical pressure to return to the norm. Given that Christianity grew out of Judaism, we can look to history to see how Jews were viewed to get a picture of how these Christians were regarded. Rome banished Jews on some occasions. There was a time when Tiberius was emperor, and again during Claudius’ reign. Claudius viewed them with animosity from the beginning of his reign. When Christianity was young, Jews were expelled from Rome. In Christianity’s earliest decades, it bore no outward distinction from Judaism as perceived by the Romans. The Jews were expelled at the instigation of “Chrestus,” according to Suetonius. 

When Diodorus wrote about Antiochus Epiphanes subduing the Jews, he referred to their customs as “wicked.” Cicero also viewed the Jews as enemies because of their behavior when they assembled. They showed no regard for the interests or laws of the Republic, and that won them no favor with Rome. Because they wanted to keep Judea pure from Roman occupation and rule, they resisted Rome. Their actions were rebellious and drew attention to the Jewish religion as the source of their unruliness and eventual disdain by the Romans. Horace believed that they were manipulative and coercive. He viewed them as always proselytizing and forcing others to join their religion. Because they proselytized, many were Jews by conversion rather than birth.  Furthermore, they believed in silly superstitions and were weaker because of their Sabbath keeping. Juvenal viewed their Sabbath keeping as idleness. Their customs were “base and abominable,” and they were the worst villains among all other peoples. As a race, they were believed to have been a curse to others, and Moses, their lawmaker, was detested. While many Jews upheld practices that distinguished them from other people, those who observed them wrote about the Jews’ hypocrisy in doing some of the very things that they seemed opposed to otherwise. If early Christians were treated anything like Jews, we get but a glimpse of it in this letter. Peter urges them to identify with Christ’s suffering (1 Peter 4:12–16) and await eternal glory (1 Peter 1:7; 2:11; 4:13; 5:4, 10–11). 

Works Referenced

 Acts 18:2; Suet. Claud. 25.4.

 Diodorus, Bibl. Hist. 34.1.3.

 Cicero, Flacc. 28.66–69.

 Horace, Sat. 1.4.142–3; cf. Matt. 23:15.

 Acts 2:10; 13:43. Cf. Juvenal, Sat. 14.102–03. A Gentile could become Jewish by circumcision, immersion, and a sacrifice (Keritot 9a; cf. Pesahim 8.8; Exod. 24:8).However, Gentile conversion was not always welcomed and in some cases was even rejected.

Juvenal, Sat. 1.5.100. To the Roman mind, anything other than what had been appointed at the founding of Rome was “vile and alien” (Livy 39.15.3). See also Juvenal, Sat. 15.1–13.

 Juvenal, Sat. 14.96, 105–06.

 Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.

 Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.21.

A Reversal of Fortunes (Esther 5-7)

After three days of fasting, Esther presents herself to the king. Unlike Mordecai, she wears her royal robes. The royal palace of Susa has been excavated, and the audience hall was over 350 feet square and divided into several chambers. Whatever separated them for thirty days, the king looks favorably upon her. Banquets figure into this story a lot. It began with a banquet that evolved into a second one, where the king grew upset with his queen. Esther’s banquet is already prepared in anticipation of a positive answer, and this will lead to a second banquet where the king’s ire turns to his right-hand man, Haman. The Greeks observed that the Persians made most of their important decisions while drunk, and when they drank wine, Ahasuerus asked what Esther requested. 

Haman is touched to be included, but his delight turns to rage when Mordecai refuses to stand when he walks by. Haman goes so far as to state his extensive wealth, sons, and the king’s esteem as prizes he possesses. However, the one thing that means the most to him is what Mordecai won’t give—homage. When is it enough? So what if that one guy doesn’t do what you want him to do? You even stated all you have, so take the wins and move on. Psychologists would say that Haman is a narcopath. “A ‘narcopath’ is a term sometimes used to describe individuals who display a combination of narcissistic and sociopathic traits, characterized by grandiosity, lack of empathy, a need for admiration, and manipulative, antisocial behavior,” according to Google’s AI overview. 

As the story progresses, the king’s sleepless night works to Mordecai’s favor. Haman has spikes prepared to impale him. Meanwhile, the king reads the annals and he hears what Mordecai had done and wishes to reward him, so since Haman was on his way to ask this of the king, he is selected to give the king’s honors to Mordecai. Because he’s so self-absorbed, he thinks the king is talking about Haman when he asks what shall be done for whom the king wishes to honor. Haman’s plan, which he believed to be for himself, is charged with implementing it on the man he hates. 

At the second banquet, the king asks her request, and Esther finally discloses that she is Jewish. As an alternative to being slaughtered, she uses the price Haman offered against him by saying that they could have been sold into slavery. After all, they were conquered by the Babylonians, who then fell to the Persians. Slaves were often composed of conquered people, and Haman has already referred to them as rebellious (Esth. 3:8). Haman either falls on the couch or the queen. Whatever it was, his actions were seen as an assault on the queen. Assyrian law prohibited coming closer than seven paces of the king’s harem, so something like this may have been in mind. Before the Japanese surrendered in WWII, it was prohibited for anyone to walk on the Emperor’s shadow. To try to lie with the queen, which he is accused of, is to lay claim to the throne too. Ahasueras feels betrayed by his most trusted minister. Neither knew of Esther’s ethnicity, but the king expected that Haman should have. 

For Such a Time as This (Esther 4)

Now that news of the impending slaughter has made its way around, Mordecai displays grief in a standard way in antiquity. Sackloth is a rough, coarse material that was uncomfortable to wear. Grief was often expressed in dramatic ways, such as wearing this garment, rolling in ashes, or placing ashes on the head. Mordecai cries bitterly while Jews throughout the empire add fasting. Though prayer to God isn’t outright mentioned, we might assume that it accompanies fasting. Because Persian monarchs were somewhat self-serving, bringing grief to them is prohibited (cf. Neh. 2:2), so Esther sends proper garments so Mordecai can pass through the king’s gate. Yet, he refuses. 

Mordecai’s refusal of appropriate attire brings in an intermediary to go between the adoptive father and daughter. How Mordecai came to learn of the plot has been debated. It was sent throughout the entire empire. Still, one theory suggests that he was a scribe for the palace and translating this in Aramaic gave him firsthand exposure (cf. Esther 8:9–10). Eunuchs weren’t just errand boys for the palace. Many of them were highly educated, so Hathach may have needed to read the edict to a presumably illiterate Esther. 

Knowledge of court practice was widespread. Mordecai likely knew this, and Esther knew that if she went before the king presumptuously, it could end with her death. Her hesitation to do so may indicate that she was no longer in the king’s favor and that by doing so, she was gambling a 50/50 chance. Furthermore, if she does nothing, her head will be on the chopping block. Mordecai expresses his faith when he says that deliverance will arise from elsewhere. He’s most likely acquainted with the promises God made to Abraham, and God will not allow his chosen people to be blotted out from the earth. Mordecai and Esther demonstrate a measure of faith. He believes in God’s promises, and she resigns herself to the possibility of death. At least she can take the shot and try to stop what is inevitable. To further add to this, she asks her countrymen to host a three-day fast in preparation for her actions. 

There are two main lessons from this chapter: 1) speak faith to your problems, and 2) never underestimate your ability to make a change. To the first point, Mordecai believed in God’s promises to Abraham, although this isn’t mentioned in the story, but he was confident that deliverance would come for the Jews. Did he wail and bemoan the state of affairs? Absolutely, but he still spoke faith to his problems. Abraham, likewise, spoke faith to his situation. When God asked him to take Isaac and sacrifice him on Mount Moriah, Abraham told his servants, “The boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you” (Gen. 22:5). He didn’t know how things would play out, but he trusted God. Even in the face of sacrificing the promised son through whom many would be blessed, he spoke faith in his situation. When Daniel’s three friends were threatened with the fiery furnace, the king asked, “Who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands” (Dan. 3:15). Their reply is an epic example of speaking faith to one’s circumstances. 

O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to present a defense to you in this matter. 17 If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up. (Dan. 3:16–18). 

Adding to this, we can also always take our problems to God. “Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7). Speaking faith to your situation, accompanied by prayer, is living by faith, and faith is the victory that overcomes the world (1 John 5:4)

To the second point, Esther initially didn’t believe she could be the difference between annihilation and survival. There are many stories throughout Scripture where one person made a difference. The Ethiopian Eunuch had Phillip; Nineveh had Jonah. Even Peter had Andrew. Andrew is often forgotten because Peter eclipsed him, but Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. Never sell yourself short. We may never know when and how God will use us. 

A New Queen Emerges (Esther 2)

Between Esther I and II, Xerxes unsuccessfully attempted to subdue Greece. With his tail tucked between his legs, he has returned to Persia, and the loss has overshadowed his wrathful feeling born from Vashti. Yet, he returns a king with no queen to greet him. As with Chapter I, advisers urge the king on what to do. Xerxes appears to be a passive king, led by his advisers. A beauty contest will be held to decide who will be the next queen, and she’ll be quartered in the king’s harem. It may seem odd that he wouldn’t take a Persian queen, but it isn’t without precedent—Artaxerxes I and Darius II had Babylonian queens. 

“Mordecai” and “Esther” are Babylonian names; the former is a play on Marduk, and the latter is from Ishtar. Mordecai’s father’s name is Hebrew, so this only shows how much exiled Jews assimilated. This isn’t a statement on their fidelity to God because Daniel and his compatriots were given pagan-based names as well. They may have had Hebrew names used within their Jewish community (Hadassah means “myrtle”). Mordecai’s lineage traces back to Israel’s first king. The term translated as “son” can mean descendant. The author shows us that these two characters belong to a prominent Benjamite family. Mordecai adopted his first cousin, some suggesting he was in his thirties and she was in her late teens. In verse seven, Esther is described precisely how Joseph was (cf. Gen. 39:6). Many similarities exist between Esther and Joseph in the story. For example, their stories are rags-to-riches. They are both attractive Hebrews and find favor with courtiers; they also have archenemies to overcome and reach the inner palace circles. 

The “cosmetics” the women underwent were to make them as unblemished and attractive as possible. Spending a night with the king has its own implications that need not be discussed. Suffice it to say, this was trial by bedding. However, because of who she was and how she was, finding favor with all she encountered won her a king. As the story goes, we’re not told why the two eunuchs became enraged, but their plot is foiled when Mordecai informs the queen of their intentions. These men weren’t “hanged” as we would envision a noose. They were impaled and displayed for the public. 

Esther reminds me of the passage from 1 Peter, “Rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight” (3:4). God’s providence is witnessed in this passage: “The King’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov. 21:1). Even though the Persian king doesn’t worship God, it still doesn’t remove him from God’s soverignty. God gave his own people into the hands of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians. Even those not necessarily aligned with God can still be used by him. That’s the whole point of Habakkuk—God would use the Babylonians’ swiftness and conquering to humble his people. Yet, because of the Babylonians’ actions, God used the Persians to overcome them. Cyrus the Great was tolerant of other religions and allowed the Jews to return to the Promised Land to rebuild.

A Crisis of Faith that Birthed a Movement

John Wesley was an Anglican priest who traveled to Georgia to evangelize the natives. While en route, the ship encountered a storm that threatened the lives of all souls aboard. Also aboard the vessel were Moravians. This church has its history in Bohemia and Moravia, the present-day Czech Republic (Czechia). In the mid-ninth century, two Greek Orthodox missionaries took the gospel to the area. They also translated Scripture into the people’s language. Still, in the centuries that followed, this area gradually fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, leading some of the people to protest. John Hus, an admirer of John Wycliffe, led the charge a century before Martin Luther’s reformation. The Moravians were also going to Georgia at the behest of General Oglethorpe’s philanthropic endeavor. As the storm raged, Wesley became increasingly worried about himself. Meanwhile, the Moravians sang hymns throughout the storm, impressing Wesley. Given their calm and worshipful demeanor through the storm, Wesley was convinced that his faith wasn’t as strong as he believed and began to have a crisis of faith. 

When John was at university, he joined a group his brother Charles and some friends founded. They covenanted to lead a holy and sober life, to take communion once per week, to be faithful in private devotions, to visit prisons regularly, and to spend time together each afternoon to study the Bible. John was the only ordained minister in the group, so he often took the lead. Outsiders mocked them as a “holy club” and “methodists.” The young priest doubts his faith in Georgia but keeps doing the work. He returned to England feeling adrift, so he contacted the Moravians, and Peter Boehler became his counselor. Boehler urged him to keep preaching the faith until he had it and to continue preaching once he had it. One night, he was with a group where Luther’s preface to Romans was being read. The reader spoke about the change that God works in the heart through faith in Jesus, and Wesley writes, “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” The notion of having a “feeling” or warmness of heart is something that is seen at the Cane Ridge Meeting in  1801. In early America, and in the major denominations, one told of their “experience” and were then baptized and accepted as members. This is something that Alexander Campbell would later argue was unbiblical in conversion.

A fellow preacher of Wesley’s, George Whitefield, began preaching in a fiery manner. When he asked Wesley to fill in for him when he went to America, Wesley wasn’t as fiery a preacher as Whitefield. During his preaching, he noticed people moaning and weeping aloud. Others collapsed in anguish. Wesley was more suited to a solemn atmosphere, but he decided that such displays were a struggle between Satan and the Holy Spirit. Wesley was Arminian and not Calvinistic. Whitefield was the latter, so they parted ways, and Wesley remained an Anglican priest, holding meetings outside the worship of the Church of England that became dubbed Methodist. His Methodist meetings were meant to prepare people for Anglican worship and communion. 

Wesley didn’t intend to establish another church, but his followers were organized into societies that met in private homes until they required a building. As the movement grew, they were divided into classes that had eleven members and a leader. They met weekly to read Scripture, pray, discuss religious matters, and collect funds. To be a leader, one didn’t need to have the credentials of an Anglican priest, so it allowed people to serve who otherwise felt unequipped in Anglicanism. However, a few Anglican priests joined over time. Lay preachers became familiar and were seen as God’s answer to the movement’s need for preachers. They didn’t replace clergy and couldn’t offer communion. Wesley held periodic meetings among the priests who had joined and the lay leaders, and this became the Annual Conference, where each was appointed to serve a circuit for three years. English law was changed to allow non-Anglican services and buildings, but they had to be registered. By doing so, it meant that they weren’t Anglican. Wesley reluctantly did so, taking the first legal step of creating a separate church. In the same way that Luther didn’t want to establish a new church but was forced to, so was Wesley.  

After the Revolutionary War, Wesley wanted representatives in the United States, so he appointed Thomas Coke as superintendent—using the word translated as “bishop” for the role. He later sent Francis Asbury, a driving force in spreading Methodism westward into the American frontier. American Methodists became their church because they didn’t feel the need to follow Wesley, so the American church became the Methodist Episcopal Church. Coke and Asbury began calling themselves bishops, contrary to Wesley’s use of “superintendent.” This group merged with the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. The Evangelical United Brethren Church rose around the same time as the Methodist Church did in the United States. It was primarily made up of Germans who immigrated to the colonies. Its two heads were Philip William Otterbein (German–Reformed) and Martin Boehm (Mennonite), so two other denominations had united to form the Evangelical United Brethren Church. 

In recent years, the United Methodist Church has split primarily over LGBTQ+ rights. Whether or not to ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriages has caused a divide, with many churches buying out of the Methodist Conference. Since 2019, over 7,000 congregations have left the church. That’s about a quarter of all Methodist churches. The debate had been ongoing for a decade as to operating with “inclusion” as a part of their culture while homosexuality had not been congruent with their teachings. Some have remained Methodist but are now Global Methodists, adhering more to the teachings of John Wesley. Others have simply remained autonomous congregations, operating as they see fit.

Not Far Enough for John Smyth

Many didn’t believe the church went far enough when England became Protestant. Those who read Scripture and applied it rather stringently were called Puritans. While some Puritans argued against episcopacy, others saw it as applicable but not divinely ordered. They argued for elders in each congregation; among those who argued for this, some believed congregations should be independent, and they were called Presbyterians. Baptists arose among the independents at the behest of an Anglican priest, John Smyth. Because of their views, they were persecuted by Mary Tudor, which led to their exile in Amsterdam. 

While in Amsterdam, Smyth studied Scripture and determined that infant baptism was invalid, so he took a bucket and ladle and poured water over his head and that of his followers. The early custom of the Baptists wasn’t immersion but pouring over a believer’s head. Returning to England, they established the first Baptist Church in 1612. Two schools of thought arose between Baptists—many agreed with John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Others followed the belief of Jacobus Arminius, who rejected predestination and advocated that God had limited control concerning man’s freedom and response. These were called Arminians and were known as General Baptists. The other group was referred to as “Particular Baptists.” 

Today, there are a variety of Baptist Churches. 

  1. Independent Baptists are autonomous as opposed to Southern Baptists, who are primarily governed by the decisions of the Southern Baptist Convention. Those that aren’t independent send a percentage of their funds to a general fund overseen by the convention or association to which it belongs. The convention determines the financial and spiritual priorities of the congregations under their umbrella. 
  2. Primitive Baptists are largely Calvinist and can somewhat resemble Pentecostals. They trust the Spirit to move in their worship, which can take a person anywhere. There is a Pentecostal Free Will Baptist church that believes in free will. Then again, there are Free Will Baptist Churches, too. 
  3. Seven-Day Baptists hold the Sabbath as sacred and binding. This type of Baptist Church was first established in America in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1671. 
  4. Missionary Baptist Churches focus on evangelism and helping the local community. 
  5. Baptist Churches that are called “First Baptist Church” are to suggest that they were the first in the town or community. 
  6. There are more than 65 Baptist denominations, but the majority belong to just five. 

Many churches have eliminated denominational titles because they indicate division and the bad press associated with things that have occurred. One of the hallmarks of many evangelical groups, with which Baptists are often associated, is the sinner’s prayer. In 2012, David Platt, a Baptist minister, criticized the sinner’s prayer as unbiblical and superstitious. 

Thomas Kidd informs that Anglo-American Puritans and evangelicals used the phrase “receive Christ into your heart” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase became more formalized during the nineteenth-century missionary movement and was a helpful way to explain that a person needed to make the personal decision to follow Jesus. This phrase’s commonality rose in the 1970s. Kidd also notes that George Whitefield published a hymn called “A Sinner’s Prayer.” 

God of my salvation, hear, and help me believe:

Simply would I now draw near, thy blessings to receive.

Full of guilt, alas I am, but to thy wounds for refuge flee; 

Friend of sinners, spotless lamb, they blood was shed for me.

One thing they believe that’s a significant divergence from us is that you can be saved before baptism. Also, they don’t partake in the Lord’s Supper weekly and use instruments. On this last point, this development is only 200 years old. Even some of their number opposed instruments.

“I would just as soon pray with machinery as to sing with machinery.” —Charles Spurgeon (Baptist) on Psalm 42

“Staunch old Baptists in former times would have as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries. And yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them and their successors in church management, with nothing like the jars and difficulties which arose of old concerning the bass viol and smaller instrument of music.” —David Benedict (Baptist Historian) “Fifty Years among the Baptists”

Preceding Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers was a group referred to as Anabaptists. As far back as the fifth century, when infant baptism was made the standard, as seen in the fifth Council of Carthage (ca. AD 401), dissidents who would be baptized as adults after being so as infants were called such. Their congregations grew and did well during the Roman Empire despite Catholicism persecuting them. Many were called Novatianists (third-century), Donatists (fourth-century), Albigenses, and Waldenses. Baptists often consider themselves inheritors of this history.

A Primer on the Reformation

The Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible in the West since AD 400, but translations into local vernacular were emerging. The fourteenth-century Oxford scholar John Wycliffe produced the first English manuscripts of Scripture. He opposed the established church because he believed it was contrary to Scripture, so the Bible in English for the common man to read became a goal. His manuscripts were produced from the Latin Bible, the only source available. Wycliffe so angered the Pope that he had his remains dug up, crushed, and scattered in the river forty-four years after he died. One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, continued his mission and advocated that people should be able to read the Bible in their own language. He opposed the tyranny of the Roman church. Hus was burned at the stake, and Wycliffe’s manuscripts were used as kindling for the fire. The year was 1415, and Hus’ last words were, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous ninety-five theses to the door at Wittenberg—an act often regarded as the spark that began the Reformation.

In the spring of 1517, Martin Luther encountered Johann Tetzel, a preacher of indulgences. Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Tetzel was a Dominican friar. To be an Augustinian monk meant you were a member of a community that followed the Rule of Saint Augustine, a fifth-century Christian scholar. Similarly, the Dominican order followed the teachings of the priest Dominic de Guzman. 

In Catholicism, there are several sacraments. These are considered holy acts one can perform. One of them is the sacrament of penance. An indulgence was a remission of sin, so Tetzel taught that paying a fee could lessen the suffering of a departed loved one being punished in purgatory. Usually, the pope initiated indulgences that were traditionally used to pay for pet projects. Tetzel’s indulgences and others paid off a bank loan a bishop had taken out for a second estate and rebuilt St. Peter’s basilica. There were tales of Tetzel’s rhyme: “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” Luther saw this as an abuse of penance, and on October 31, 1517, he nailed his 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This is referred to as the spark that ignited the Reformation. Eventually, the protestations of Luther birthed the Lutheran Church. They view Christ as the head of the church, Scripture alone determines doctrine, a person is saved by grace through faith alone, rejects transubstantiation, and does not regard Mary and the saints as intercessors. They also do not believe in purgatory. To learn more, look up and read the Augsburg Confession. 

Martin Luther’s reading of Romans during the Reformation changed the book’s Western interpretation for centuries. John Wesley, of Methodist notoriety, obliged Luther’s translation. Luther’s reading of Romans led to justification by faith alone. In Romans 3:28, Luther added “alone” after faith. Because he was an Augustinian monk, undoubtedly following Augustine’s interpretation of verses 22 and 26 as “faith in Christ” rather than “the faithfulness of Christ,” Reformation theology followed a chain of error. First, with Augustine, who was Ambrose’s protégé, then Luther, an Augustinian monk, and throughout the West and centuries, Reformed theology has taught this way. Romans, however, in the rendering of the syntax, doesn’t altogether disagree with it. Still, even Luther admitted that “alone” or “only” wasn’t present in the text in his 1530 Translating: An Open Letter.

In 1534, King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, Catherin of Aragon, to marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. The pope refused to grant it, but Henry had reformers in his court—Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer. They argued that he shouldn’t be subjected to the pope’s jurisdiction, so Henry made Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1534, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, solidifying a break from the Catholic Church. All Catholic property (e.g., monasteries) reverted to the Crown, so Henry distributed them to loyalists. Though they look a lot alike, Anglicans don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation; they allow women to be ordained as priests, and they may diverge on marriage and divorce and issues of morality.