Two Things I’ve Learned from Five Years of Marriage

My twenties were filled with weddings. Every summer, and sometimes in the winter, there were weddings to attend. I would go to Target, buy and wrap a nice salad bowl, put on my suit, and hope for something good to eat at the reception. Sometimes I would walk away thinking, “Wow, that was great!”

But after a while, I got tired of weddings. As I sat and watched a ceremony, my thoughts began to shift from, “Wow, this is such a big moment for them!” to, “They seem a little immature to be doing this”, “They seem too volatile to last very long together”, and other criticisms.

Those fleeting thoughts of pessimism are sadly coming true . It’s now that stage in life when people are actually getting divorced. 

It’s strange how a divorce makes itself known on Facebook: a new profile picture, an old last name, or a new relationship status. When I notice it, I realize something awful has just happened. It’s a silent earthquake. People are hurting and I had no idea.

The next wedding I go to, I know I’ll feel a much greater sense of “Gosh, I sure hope this goes well. I hope they really try to work the hard stuff out.” And I’ll probably pray for them.

In response to the sadness of these divorces around me, I want to share the two things I’ve learned in five years of marriage because I think it can help people to stay together.

Lesson 1: I don’t understand very much about my wife.

I’m not saying “Women are from Venus”. Forget my inability to sympathize with the emotional intricacies of the menstrual cycle. That’s not what I’m saying. Guys are no easier to understand. I’ve had roommates (men from Mars like me) and they didn’t make half as much sense as my wife. She is one of the most candid, reasonable, and sensible people I’ve ever known.

Despite how much sense she makes as a person, sometimes I’m completely lost as I try to make sense of her. This lostness isn’t her fault; it’s because I’m a lousy relational cartographer.

Map-making is a lot like marriage. Your spouse is the land. You are a map-maker/voyager who travelling with your map, correcting it when you go wrong.

My map looks really bad at times. It probably looks like Columbus’ map of “the Americas” in comparison with a modern satellite image.

Just like Columbus, I’ve made a map that is really accurate in some respects (check out Africa!) but is inaccurate in other ways because its based on my assumptions about “How She Is”.

Yet that same map, as misshaped and messy as it may be, is crucial for being a good husband. Neglecting it, flawed as it is, will only make things worse.  Don’t ignore it and don’t throw it out. Revise it.

This leads me to the other thing I’ve learned…

Lesson 2: I need to understand her better.

In sixth grade, I remember making a North American map. By that time, I had mastered the continental US shape (kindof like a rhino plus Texas). But the new thing all the students had to do was draw and label Canada’s provinces correctly. This was on one of those giant pieces of butcher paper that really exposed how bad kids draw (especially me).

Even at the tender age of eleven, I realized there were two ways to do that map: I could make a smoothed-out splotch of a country or I could draw it with all those jagged edges and inlets that give a map its authenticating nuance. Even if I was wrong and created a dozen bays that don’t exist, it still looked more real.

For a relationship to work, you need to scrap that elementary school, smooth-lined map of your significant other. And when you start to draw those jagged edges, don’t fake them!  Those assumptions lead to conflict when the real person doesn’t match up. Your relationship is what happens when you actually live out of love based on what you really know about the other person.

I think the most rewarding thing about marriage is standing back from it and just looking at how special your relationship is. I think God loves to see people engaged in understanding each other and loving the other in all their uniqueness.

 1 Pet 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way.

James 3:13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.

Surveying How People Read the Bible

In this survey, I asked my friends on Facebook to respond to some questions I created about the Bible. The questions deal with one’s view of the Bible as a text as well as one’s view of the Bible’s contents – what it teaches.

I found the answers extremely interesting. I will try to convey why.

Before I do that, I want to say that this survey did not allow multiple answers, except the last question. People didn’t like this because they hate being squeezed into taking just one view. But I still want to do that because  I don’t just want to know what people think is the right answer. I also want to know the way people think about their answers. I want to see how the unique contours of people’s opinions shape what they read.

For instance, I think anyone who’s reading Revelation is going to see aspects of the cross, the present, and the future.  In fact, the angel told John to write down the things he’s about to see, things in the past, present, and future. So if a person agrees to that, they might just be showing me they remember that passage. In that case, I don’t just want correctness of memory; I want candor of opinion. In this case, most of the respondents focus more often on the future. That’s good to know.

There is so much disagreement about Revelation…and the rest of the Bible. So we need to know how people see themselves in the midst of those debates — because that knowledge actually helps us to understand the disagreement a lot more and be less disagreeable overall.

Anyhow…here are my summary thoughts on the data:

1) Reformed & Dispensational Theology

There is a definite Reformed undercurrent to many of the responses. First, to see the Bible as the disclosure of God’s “redemptive plan” is a Reformed approach. Many of my friends are Reformed in their theology, so that makes sense.

But also, some people saw the Bible as the story of God making a kingdom. Most dispensationalists see it that way. But of the two guys I like most, one is a dispensationalist who focuses more on the Bible as redemptive history…the other is a Reformed theologian who focuses more on the kingdom!

Either way, the ‘redemptive plan’ idea makes the most sense to most of my friends who took the survey. And it’s good to know how people are thinking about the entire theme of the Bible!

Also, many people see a covenant in either Genesis 1 or 3. Technically, God doesn’t ‘mention’ the term ‘covenant’ until Genesis 6, when he tells Noah he will make a covenant. That could be a right answer…and it was my answer. Yet people don’t always answer the question they read as much as they answer the question they process as they think of an answer.

2) Inerrancy

People commonly answered very strongly for complete biblical inerrancy. What is shocking here is that most conservative scholars who are firmly in the ‘inerrant’ camp characterize inerrancy as the infallibility of the original manuscripts, not the Bible we possess per se. The transmission of the manuscripts, the selection of which manuscripts are best, and their translation into English are all areas where mistakes can be made.

However, most people answered that the Bible they possess is inerrant. Good to know people believe God doesn’t make mistakes…but it would be better to teach on how human mistakes can play a role in the process of delivering God’s Greek and Hebrew word into 21st century English.

3) Israel!

I know many people have very opinionated views on Israel. It was fascinating to see the answer to the question of whether Israel is ‘like’ the church. To see how close the divide is was very interesting to me. I’m still not sure about what that divide means, though. People tend to slightly say ‘God’s relationship with them is like his relationship to the church’ more often. I agree. But I imagine many disagree not because they see no connection, but because they are cautious not to be supercessionists (in a crude nutshell: those who think the church replaced Israel).

4) The Gospel (in Acts)

Hugely interesting. I encourage everyone to just read those accounts in Acts and decide for yourself. This should be very important to people and I enjoyed the diversity of answers. Still, I do think there is a right answer. We can learn a lot from the apostles in how we present the Gospel. That’s all.

5) The Minor Prophets!

Yes! This is really what I want to know about. I want to teach on the Minor Prophets now! Much more now, because of how so many confessed they are unfamiliar with them.

Now here’s the kicker, as I begin to study the Minor Prophets, I have an awesome gateway into how people view the entire Bible. That helps me craft teaching that not only teaches the prophets, but teaches it in a way that can be much more sensitive to how people view what the Minor Prophets are saying in the big story of the Bible.

I am definitely going to do this more. I hope you enjoyed looking at this and I would love to get (and interact with) feedback in the comments section!

Stetzer on Multisite Churches

A CT blog that struck my attention today is by Ed Stetzer, a pastor, professor, executive, and writer from Tennessee. The post is about multi-site churches. Essentially, multi-site churches have a pastor preach in a church with a camera that telecasts the message to other congregations which align themselves under the church government of the original church.

The Multi-Site

“I am critical of the multi-site done poorly, and I am in favor of the multi-site done well…”

Stetzer is circumspect about the idea. He has criticized multi-site churches in the past. In that post, he mentions three areas where they could fall short: fulfilling pastoral responsibilities (esp. caring for members), creating Christian community, and producing new leaders and teachers.

I would add one more concern: the inability of the congregation to observe the example of the pastor. It’s possible for a pastor to delegate responsibilities of governance and care to other people, but it’s impossible to delegate relationships. Yes, the pastor must be with his congregation to know them… and they should know him, too! For the congregation, the consistency of the pastor’s life is the necessary background of his sermons.

Can It Work?

In his post, Stetzer writes that a multi-site church responded to his concerns.

They wrote to him showing that, especially in response to his third concern, their multi-site church has reproduced many leaders. In his words, their lead pastor “…demonstrated that [a] multisite like this can build leaders who aren’t called to be the primary pastor, while simultaneously developing leaders who have the right make up to be the key vision caster.”

While I agree with Stetzer’s concerns about multi-site churches, I don’t agree with him here.

Pay attention to the wording: “…this can build leaders who aren’t called to be the primary pastor…” Because the word “called” is in the passive voice, the sentence is ambiguous. Who is not calling? What if God is, but the church isn’t? It would be better to say, “This builds potential leaders who cannot become the primary pastor.”

The multi-site church’s biggest flaw is that it prohibits that possibility. A willingness to engage in church-planting, rather than strict adherence to the multi-site model, would change that. Church satellites could become actual churches as leaders took on local responsibility for preaching and leadership. This would make real leaders — not just potential leaders.

The Church as Engine

Stetzer continues by saying that, while these people can’t be lead pastor, the multi-site model develops, “… leaders who have the right make up to be the key vision caster.” I don’t know what a vision caster is. The Bible doesn’t ever refer to that. I think it may be a synonym for lead pastor. If it is, these leaders must necessarily leave the multi-site church and either start another church or find another church in order to utilize that ability.

Is the video screen experience worth preserving at the expense of creating & installing local pastoral leaders?

I think it’s better to acknowledge a leader when one exists. Acknowledge the benefit of a local lead pastor who grew up in the church (if he truly is competent for the task) over the one that comes in through a screen.

Stetzer concludes with suggesting a model of, “…regional multisites that are leadership development engines, sending out planter pastors and campus pastors (depending on the gifting and call of the pastor) to start churches or sites that reach lost people and develop more such leaders.” In this suggestion, Stetzer commends multisite churches to remain so. Rather than encouraging leaders to be given lead pastor responsibility within the church in a satellite locale, he wants them out of the multisite. They need to start their own churches.

Something to Shoot For

The idea of confining churches to remaining multi-site at the expense of giving over satellite congregations to God-given leaders seems unnecessary.

If a church grows really fast and wants to have another site…fine. But I think this is a temporary stop-gap at best. Let’s turn these multi-site churches into church plants that can grow and flourish with local overseers who lovingly shepherd them and apply the Word to their lives every Sunday.

Think of it like this: if Paul lived today, would he still let Timothy be the pastor of the church of Ephesus? Or would he rather just have Timothy introduce Paul’s broadcast Sunday morning, run a small group, and make all the hospital visits around Ephesus?

Two Sermons Downloads

Last year, I preached my first two sermons. The first was on James 1:2-6, which is James’ explanation of how to be when going through trials. The second was on Colossians 4:5-6, and covers the way we share our lives with non-Christians.

The outline for the first sermon “How to Make it through Trials” is:
1. Consider your trials as joy
2. Pray to God for wisdom
3. Expect God to provide it
Click here to listen

The outline for the second one “How to Witness with Wisdom” is:
1. Live with wisdom
2. Speak with graciousness
Click here to listen

My Eschatology

It’s all here anyways…right? 🙂

Those of you discuss theology much with me understand that my beliefs on most of theology are a mash-up of two theological camps: Presbyterians and Baptists. So when you read my Eschatology Statement you will find views that don’t fit well in Covenant or Dispensational systems. I want to point out why I have written what is here. My main goals in interpreting the Bible, especially Biblical prophecy and making theology from it are as follows:

1) Establish the historical, literary, grammatical meaning.

Every part of the Bible was written especially for a contemporary situation. The writing itself was written in a specific genre which the people in that situation would have understood (poetry, narrative, prophecy, covenant). The historical situation, the literary genre, and the grammatical meaning give us the clues we need to interpret what God was saying when he said it and what he meant people in that moment to understand.

Since Revelation is not a narrative (story), I don’t assume that it is necessarily a linear chronology from start-to-finish. It is apocalyptic and prophetic, and these genres are often non-linear. For that reason, I don’t spend a lot of time sorting out the three sequences of judgment through plagues. They may be a recapitulation of each other…or a sequence of three. But within the genre, an argument could be made for both.

On the other hand, I do take Revelation to present a literal fulfillment of the promises made to Israel in the covenants of the Old Testament. Why? Because these covenants stipulate physical terms that must be kept. Just because Revelation is apocalyptic and prophetic doesn’t the make physical promises made in the covenant genre change. So we have a license to look for literal things when promises made in the past necessitate us to do so. Apocalyptic and prophetic literature can be both futuristic and literal, but it requires that we understand those future literal ideas within the language of symbols.

2) The Bible develops revelation in a progressive way.

The people of God throughout history understood God more and more as he revealed himself verbally. New truths God teaches don’t contradict past understandings; rather, they build on them.

When God told Abraham he was going to bless him, he expanded on that blessing in later conversations with Abraham. When God first revealed his laws to Moses, he expanded on them later. All this is to say you must understand the first things before you are able to understand later things. If someone picks up a Bible and reads that Jesus is the “Christ”, whatever meaning they have will be limited to what they know of the “Messiah” idea as developed in the Old Testament as God taught Israel about what the Messiah would do and who he would be. God progressively reveals more of himself from the beginning of the Old Testament into the New Testament.

3) Understand the permanent nature of the terms Biblical covenants.

When God makes a covenant in Scripture, like he does to Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David, that establishes 1) something we know about God and 2) a commitment we expect God to fulfill. Since God is trustworthy, if he makes a promise in physical terms (“…all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood…” “To your descendants I have given this land” “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you”)…he will keep it in the terms he made it.

This is an important aspect of prophecy, as they are often predicated on the fulfillment of prophecies. He may do other things as well, but he will do no less than keep his part of the terms of the agreement. Paul describes this as he writes to Gentiles about to the future restoration of Israel (Rom 11:25-29):

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

4) Many of the terms of Biblical covenants are necessarily physical.

It is a mistake to understand fulfillment of covenant in terms apart from the ones used. If one were to speak with Abraham today, asking him, “To whom was this land of Canaan promised?” He would say, “To my descendants, of course!” And he would be right.

Despite thousands of years transpiring in the meantime, we must expect God to fulfill his promise in the covenants in the same physical terms which he agreed to. That is not to say that God will exclude Gentiles from a future with Christ. It is only pointing out that excluding ethnic descendants of Abraham from inheriting what was promised to them would be a revocation of the promise.

If I told my wife, “I am going to give you a car” and the next day, I gave her a car and I also had a new car for myself, that wouldn’t be wrong. What would be wrong is if I gave her nothing. With that said, I encourage you to check out my doctrinal statement understanding some of my presuppositions for why I say what I do.

Also, my eschatology statement may change a lot before I die. It certainly will change afterwards!

The Supreme Court, DOMA, and Proposition 8

Neither side of the gay-marriage debate appears to understand the consequences of the precedent it supports. The conservative and progressive sides want the Supreme Court to establish a precedent that goes completely contrary to what they would want if that precedent were exercised under a different set of circumstances.

The conservative support for DOMA essentially establishes a precedent that says, “Depending on what the majority of Americans agree is moral, the Federal Government should determine what marriage is.” In 1996, the majority was clearly on their side. But when the time comes that a majority of Americans think gay-marriage is morally OK, how many conservatives would stick with that precedent? They would abandon it immediately! It would be lamented as a massive imposition of Federal power for the Federal government to ‘redefine’ marriage in such a way.

On the other hand, the progressive argument that the Supreme Court should not only strike down Prop 8, but do so when Federal law supports it, puts massive power in the hands of the Supreme Court to decide State and Federal law on a topic (marriage) which the Constitution does not address. For the Court to extend its power over Congress, which enacted DOMA, and the Executive, which still enforces it, is exactly the power that proponents of ObamaCare did not want the Court to wield.

Imagine the Court not only striking down ObamaCare, but, in the same decision, making it illegal for the state of Massachusetts to provide its similar healthcare program, Commonwealth Care, on the state level. Wouldn’t progressives in Massachusetts and D.C. be outraged? You bet they would. The Supreme Court has no right to tell states how to administrate health care. Yet progressives assume the Court has the right to overturn the will of the people of the State when it comes to marriage.

The best solution, to me, is for DOMA to be struck down but Proposition 8 to be allowed to stand. That way, individual states can call marriage whatever they want. The Federal government has no right to define marriage for individual states since the Constitution is silent on the matter. And the Supreme Court has no right to overrule Proposition 8 for the exact same reason: it is a violation of states rights since it reaches beyond the scope of the Constitution.

I hope God gives the Court wisdom to sort the wheat from the chaff in this important debate.

Personal Criticism

This is my application of James 3:1-12. First, I had to interpret the culture of the passage and the passage itself.  In this, I tried to step outside my own culture, interpret it, and then try to impose the principles in the passage onto my culture. I wrote it for a class.

~

My personal native culture places a strong emphasis on accomplishing personal success without sacrificing time to enjoy life’s pleasures. The people with whom I associate are generally at least middle class, have some political understanding, often share my religious beliefs, and have successful careers in a variety of professional arenas. Those who do not share my racial background often still share similar assimilation into American culture consisting of TV, sports, music, and movies while also maintaining firm views about which elements of this culture are best and worst. Most have fairly well-defined political views, too.

My culture enjoys a candid criticism of someone in politics, religion, society, or even family, who is bothersome or annoying.

In the case of James 3:1-12, James instructs Christians, both those who want to speak to the church and those who don’t, to reflect on the purity of their speech, particularly with reference to other people. Most of his instruction may seem agreeable to most people in my culture, but an outsider might notice a lot of incongruity between James’ commands and the speech patterns of many in my culture.

In my culture, a well-put complaint garners praise and agreement. On Facebook and in person, my friends and I often register our observations about other people. Now, most often, these are thankful, but sometimes, we bring up the mistakes of others in a critical or mocking way. These criticisms function as a type of ethical catharsis. We all feel like we have high standards and people’s mistakes that fall short should be reproved or at least announced. Doing this validates who we are, the choices we have made, and the goals we have for our future.

As long as the person we criticize isn’t a dear friend or associate of ours (or as long as we keep their name anonymous if they are), few in my culture would be personally shocked or offended by hearing or reading a rant against someone else (especially someone in the public realm). Moreover, if the person complaining did so humorously enough, others would praise and agree with him or her. The more profound and adept the complaint is, the more praise will follow. And the more successful a person is, the more likely people in my culture will readily accept the harsh critique of someone of whom the person does not approve.

James’ approach to speech would challenge this aspect of my culture. He does not tolerate a person blessing God and cursing people made in his image. While few of my friends and associates would go so far as to verbalize a desire to send someone to hell, the absence of any corresponding comments to moderate or balance their critique essentially defines the person by their flawed action. My culture often fails to admit that even seriously flawed people are made in God’s image. Moreover, they often ignore their own deep-seated personal shortcomings.

James’ admonition to examine everything one says as to whether it reflects back on one’s spiritual identity would lead to a great amount of verbal redaction if people in my culture were to fully obey it. If a person sees a flaw in someone else, the Christian response would more often entail a prayer on that person’s behalf or a private exhortation rather than a public rant.

Furthermore, if someone wants to be a church teacher, especially as a vocation, they must demonstrate a level of self-censorship not often practiced in my culture. It would serve a person well to elicit the views of other people, who could offer constructive criticism or advice to that person, on how well that person controls their tongue. It would also serve a congregation well to pay as much attention to a young person’s ability to control their speech as their ability to teach before commending that person to pursue a career in a church leadership position. It is not merely a person’s knowledge or ability to discern ideas that makes them spiritual, but their ability to know and discern their own motives, speech, and conduct.

One Mid-Term

Alright.  I haven’t done any writing in my blog for a while for a couple reasons:

1) I have been much busier than I was in college.

2) I have had to learn and do a lot of stuff that takes up my creative imagination.

3) I got into car stuff.

Anyhow, I wanted to give a sample of what that is like.  I apologize if you thought this would be anything other than what the title is.  But I’m putting this on the blog because it shows what is on my mind these days, and it gives a sample of what seminary is like, for those of you who may be curious.

The following is my mid-term examination for my Old Testament Historical Narratives class.  It’s a good class.  The professor, Herman Austel, was on the translation team for the New American Standard Bible.  He’s a very humble, interesting, and personable guy.  I am blessed to have the chance to learn his perspective on a variety of Biblical issues.

My hope is that, if you read this, you are somehow edified spiritually.  Maybe that you will consider something you haven’t, or be reminded of something you needed to remember.

~

David Robinson

October 15, 2010

Old Testament Historical Books

Dr. Herman Austel

Midterm Examination

1.  Name ten problems with the Documentary Hypothesis (Why the five books of Moses weren’t written during a much later period by Jewish Scribes)

 
1. Scholarship usually accepts ancient texts as truth unless evidence proves otherwise.  Mosaic authorship is treated as false without archeological or other historical evidence.
2. The D.H. is based on the assumptions which come from the Theory of Evolution of Religion, which has been disproven thoroughly.
3. Moses uses the masculine pronoun (our equivalent of “he”) for men and women, a trait not used in the rest of the Hebrew O.T.
4. For the writers (and/or compilers) of the Mosaic books to present teachings about truth, honesty, and testing and rejection of prophets who are false to completely lie about the authorship of the book they write/compile is completely counter-intuitive.
5. Moses uses the English equivalent of “-ward” (as in toward or homeward) far more often than the rest of the O.T. writers.
6. Moses uses many Egyptian names for things and refers to Canaan as a place which has yet to be seen, indicating his familiarity with Egypt.
7. The construction of the so-called Ten Commandments indicates a form which directly parallels the Hittite treaties contemporary with the 2^nd millennium and is significantly different than 7^th century Assyrian treaties, when critics propose the Mosaic books were written/compiled.
8. Other countries from Moses’ time had written books, why shouldn’t Israel?  They were certainly at least as literate as other contemporary nations.
9. Skepticism about Mosaic authorship, leading to the JEDP theory, is based on a biased anti-supernaturalistic presupposition.
10. Many names used throughout the Pentateuch were obsolete in all the rest of the Old Testament, showing its age.

 

Extra:  Many apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books were not accepted as either truthful or canonical by their contemporary Jewish audience due to skepticism or uncertainty about their authorship.   If they were capable of discerning authorship fraud in those books, why would they have blindly and unanimously accepted Moses’ authorship without any dissent for 2500 years?

2. Show how the book of Genesis develops God’s redemptive program.

Genesis develops God’s redemptive program by presenting God’s sinless creation, man’s fall into sin, and God’s provision of redemption for his people.

When God creates all the heavens and earth, he describes it as “good”.  He gives only one rule to Adam and Eve: do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Adam and Eve violate that rule, causing the entire human race to be born into sin.  The serpent, the devil, led Adam and Eve into this sin. God condemns Adam, Eve, and the serpent individually for the part in this downfall.  But during this condemnation, he says that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent and the serpent will bruise the heal of the seed.  The “seed” God refers to is Jesus Christ.  He will crush the power of Satan’s to tempt permanently one day.  As he does this, he will be hurt in the process, but will ultimately be victorious.  Although Adam and Eve did not have a clear knowledge of who Jesus was, they had a promise from God that he would one day put an end to Satan and temptation through a sacrificial man.  The seed, then, is the hope God gives to the newly fallen first couple, who they must trust in for their future redemption from sin.  One day, this seed will return everything to its “good” state.

3.   Discuss the importance and implementation of the Abrahamic covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant is important because when God made his covenant with Abraham, he laid the foundation of his special relationship with Israel.  This covenant is unique in that it was made unilaterally, without conditions for Abraham to uphold.  God simply declared:

^12:2 I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

³ I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.

Due to this covenant, God has created the nation of Israel from Abraham’s line (through Sarah).  This nation exists, as the passage states, for two specific purposes: God will bless it and he will bless all peoples on earth through it.  Later, when God expands on this covenant, we read, “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)  God promised to bless Abraham, Abraham believed him, and then did what God asked him to do. The Abrahamic covenant was then symbolized by circumcision.

Later on as a nation, God implemented his covenant to bless Israel by taking them out of slavery to Egypt, giving them their own land, and taught them about himself giving them specific laws through which they may be blessed if they obey it in the faith of their forefather.  As Israel obeyed God, he blessed her; as she disobeyed, he punished her.  But even though most of Abraham’s present day descendents do not believe (though they do have their land back), God’s unilateral covenant is still in place; God still has preserved them as a people and one day, when they collectively have faith in him, they will be permanently redeemed from sin.

The implementation of this covenant has one other aspect: Gentiles today who have the same relationship of faith in the God of Israel are grafted into this “tree” and accepted as heirs of the covenant without specifically becoming Jewish converts, as Paul describes in Romans 10.  We can come to God through faith in Jesus and God credits righteousness to them in the same way he did to Abraham: by faith.

4. Discuss the importance of the book of Exodus

The book of Exodus is important because it shows how God redeems the Hebrew people from bondage to Egypt.  Once he has done that, we see God reveal himself to them in the Sinai primarily through Moses, but at times, speaking directly to the people.  Throughout their time in the Sinai, Moses teaches the people about God’s holy standard.  We also see God’s power on display through his judgment on Pharoah and his wrathful response to idolatry and disobedience.  By reading Exodus, we learn that God has a plan of redemption of which he is always in complete control.  We see that we, as his people, must refrain from the impatience, discontent, and rebellion that Israel demonstrated at times.  We must trust in his sovereign plan despite our temporary situation.  And we see that, by trusting him and counting on his provision, we bring his blessing on ourselves.

5.  a. Who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?

Genesis 6:1

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.  Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

It is my view that these sons of God were men who were from the godly line of Seth.  Throughout the Old Testament, God warns his people about the dangers of inter-marriage.  Marrying strangers, people outside the covenant, leads to bad things.  Since mothers have such an important role in the spiritual formation of children, one jeopardizes the opportunity to pass on the importance of knowing and believing in the true God if he marries a woman who does not know God.

When I say the “godly line of Seth”, it is because Seth’s line seems to be full of righteous people.  We read that he was a son in Adam’s own image. Later on, his line produced Enoch, who walked with God.  Lamech, who had retained a good memory of the fall, came later, and Noah, Lamech’s son was one of a few righteous people left by the time of the flood.  This line of ancestors (most of whom were old enough to all be contemporaries) seem to be, at least, a family that preserved and taught the truth about God.

If the men of Seth’s line are the “sons of God”, it follows that the “daughters of man” are simply women who fall outside that realm of trusting in or even knowing about God.  That creates a simple dichotomy that doesn’t push the meaning of the text as far as, perhaps, the idea that angels became men and had relations with women who bore semi-angelic sons. Consider also that this genealogy of Seth’s line leads us immediately into chapter 6 of Genesis, where we learn that God has quickly become fed up with humanity.  Why?

These godly men produced children with attractive, exotic, albeit unbelieving, women.  These children may have attained some knowledge of history, but were not taught to worship God.  It doesn’t take much imagination to think that, soon enough, very few people would be left who were devoted to God at all.  We then arrive at this state: “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” (Gen. 6:5)

To me, identifying the sons of God and daughters of man in this way is the most plausible way to understand the narrative of Genesis in a consistent, sensible way.

b. Give an overview of the book of Leviticus (closed Bible):

In the book of Leviticus, God shows Israel the extent of his demands for holiness.  In the first seven chapters, he outlines the sacrificial system so that they know how to rightly respond to their personal sin.  They learn that sin is atoned by sacrifice.  Blood sacrifice was the most common form.  This system symbolically set the stage for fulfillment by Christ’s death on the cross.

Next, God showed Israel his requirements for priests who were of the line of Levi. Priests act as intermediaries between God and man.  They are the only ones allowed to perform sacrifices and work in the tabernacle (later the temple).  This foreshadowed Christ’s intercessory work with the Father on behalf those who trust in him. (Chapters 8-11, I think)

God then presents his laws concerning purification (12-17, I think).  These laws deal with everything including daily personal life, food preparation, and ritual purification.  They show us that every aspect of life must take God into account.  Ritual cleanliness was meant to reflect an inward condition of spiritual purity, which Christ perfectly demonstrated in his earthly sojourn.

In the last section of Leviticus, we read a series of exhortations pertaining to the holy standard which Israel must attain for right standing with God.  Through this section and the ones prior to it, Israel would be reminded that God requires from humans a perfection they do not have.  Thus, an unblemished substitute life must die in their stead as they seek to be in a proper relationship with a holy God.

h. Discuss and compare the Hittite and Aramaic/Assyrian treaty formats.  Why is this distinction important?

Many scholars who subscribe to the JEDP theory of the five books of Moses believe it was composed primarily, if not exclusively during the 1^st millennium B.C., roughly from 850-620, its composition being finalized during the reign of Josiah.  Among the many aforementioned reasons why this view is untenable, one of the best reasons is that the Mosaic covenant established between God and the Hebrews after leaving Egypt bears almost complete similarity with the basic form of the Hittite Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty, a treaty which earned its name from a nation that did not last the 13^th century B.C.

The Hittite treaty began with a naming of the Suzerain, or more powerful party.  It continued with a historical prologue describing the relationship between the two parties up till the treaty.  It then laid down a set of laws which both parties agreed to.  Then, the treaty contained a deposition which required that it be read to all the people and posted so it would not be forgotten.  Finally, it delineated a series of curses for those who disobeyed it and blessings for those who followed it.  This basic treaty format parallels the format of the treaty God made with Israel (in the section containing the ten commandments) after leaving Egypt.

On the other hand, the Aramaic/Assyrian treaty, while similar in some areas, did not have a historical prologue, did not often follow the same order, and it did not commonly contain any blessings if the treaty was kept, though they did traditionally have curses listed.

By distinguishing between these two treaty formats, anyone can see that the five books of Moses are much more likely an authentic expression contemporary with the times the Bible says the Exodus happened, not a later product of scribes working to compile and write a hodge-podge of historical sounding stories.

Interview with Joy Whitlock

After reviewing her album, I had the opportunity to ask Joy some questions about her music.  I was very intrigued by the responses and glad to share them with you.

If you could tour with one Christian musician, who would it be and what song(s) (of yours or theirs) would you like to perform with them?

Hands down…Jennifer Knapp.  I think she would be awesome on Cost of Being Free and Testify.  It would be a joy to sing any of her songs, but if I must choose….The Way I Am.

The song “Testify” seems to reflect glimmers of Jennifer Knapp.  What do you appreciate about her music?

You can really tell by listening to her records that what you see is what you get.  She was the most real writer, in my opinion.  And still is.  She put a voice to some of the things that were unspeakable in my heart.

If you could tour with one non-Christian musician, who would it be and what song(s) (of yours or theirs) would you like to perform with them?

I really like Ben Harper’s music.  A cool song to sing would be Roses From My Friends.

The song “Your Face” is perhaps the most “acoustic” song on the album…would you enjoy doing an “unplugged” album or acoustic concert?

I think an unplugged album could be really cool.  The majority of my shows are acoustic, so it wouldn’t really be anything out of the norm to actually record an acoustic album.

Spiritual Questions:

At the end of “Faith Don’t Fail”, you ask, “You’re faithful aren’t You?”  How do spiritual doubts or questions affect your relationship with God?

A lot of the time doubts and questions hinder me, to be honest.  I would love to give the spiritual answer and say, “Oh they make me so much stronger”, but I can’t.  It is so hard for me to separate emotions from reality sometimes.

After a concert, what do you want people thinking about as they leave the building?

Eternity.

To what extent do you seek to evangelize during your concerts?

I hold nothing back when giving my testimony and sharing the gospel.  I even use the words ‘sin’ and ‘hell’!

Music Industry Questions:

Have you ever been asked to change or tone down your lyrics?  If so, why?

Only once has this happened, and it was completely harmless.  In the chorus of Faith Don’t Fail, the line was originally “These memories are like hands around my throat”.  When the record label decided to give this song a shot at radio, someone thought that “hands around my throat” might be misconstrued…too violent or something.  So, I changed the words to “These memories won’t let me go”.

And it worked out really well.  The melody kind of changed with the lyrics and I really liked it.  I was given the option to have the original lyrics on the album, though.  But I liked the new melody so much that I decided to let the change stay.  I don’t think anything was lost by replacing those lyrics.  Although they are more vivid.

What obstacles does a young, Christian, female musician face in the CCM world?

I’m not so young anymore.  When I first started this journey, I was 24.  Now I’m pushing 29.  So, the age thing may be an obstacle.  The obstacle I am quite familiar with is all about radio.  Some new artists just can’t break into that box.  It has been really tough to get one of the songs from the album to pass all the “tests”.  I’m still trying to understand it myself.

Random:

What inspired you to ask a Rabbi to play the shofar on your song, “Day of the Lord”?  Was the Rabbi a believer? If he wasn’t what was his response to your request and your song?  I thought that was a very interesting touch.

Well, the shofar was my idea, but I didn’t know anyone who could actually play the thing.  My producer’s wife knew a Rabbi who just happened to own a couple and could play them, as well.  The Rabbi was not a believer in Jesus.  I have to be honest, it was quite awkward.  He was happy to oblige as far as pitching in on the song.

He came to the studio and we met and chatted about nothing for a few minutes.  And then came the question I was fearing….”so what is this song about?”.  I have a great respect and love for the Jewish people and I did not want to offend this man.  Plus, who was I to engage in theology with a RABBI?!  Just sounded silly to me.  But I proceeded to tell him that it was about the day that Jesus Christ returns…in wrath…to judge a sinful world….as King of Kings.  You could’ve heard a pin drop.  At the end of it all, I think it went well.  🙂  He asked to hear the song beforehand, and I watched him as he sat there nodding his head to the beat of the song with his eyes closed.

Truly, I am not sure what he thought.  I know for a fact that he noticed all of the Old Testament terminology that I used.  He had to…the song is full of it.  So, maybe I connected with him in that area.  But I don’t know.  Maybe, just maybe, he will be one of the 144,000.  I really hope so….

Thank you, Joy!

Music Review: God and a Girl

A few months ago, I was asked to review a CD. Doing a music review is something new for me; so I gladly accepted. The album is called “God and a Girl” and the artist is Joy Whitlock.  She is a serious believer who brings considerable forethought into each of the fourteen songs that make up this album.

Throughout the album, Whitlock engages in an eclectic array of musical styles.  In an interview, she was asked about her style and replied, “I would describe my style as a wide variety. ” At times she dabbles in acoustic sounds similar to Nickel Creek and at others, she sounds more like Evanescence.  These sorts of changes can become a distraction for the listener primarily because one doesn’t get a sense of progress throughout the album, but one of experimentation.  As Joy continues to produce, we’ll expect a slightly more homogeneous album.  But any time you pack 14 songs onto a CD, you’d have to expect a bit more variation.

Whitlock has quite a bit of lyrical ability. Nearly all her songs seem to emphasize the struggle between flesh and faith.  But she is not mired in self-pity and remorse.  One of my concerns about Christian artists who complain about their sin a lot is that they need to focus equally on God’s grace; Joy certainly does that too.

“Don’t Look Down” is a good example of Whitlock’s best strength: deeply personal lyrics that are universal enough to be meaningful for unbeliever and, when seen through the Biblical verse she gives as its inspiration, Hebrews 12:1-3, it becomes even more understandable and meaningful for the believer:

“Tragedy is half the fight
Are you willing to lose your life
Come on let it bleed
There’s nothing you can hide from me.”

These lyrics are related to the passage:

“For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.  You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” (Heb 12:3-4).

As you can tell, the lyrics are much less concrete than the passage upon which they are based; but ever since Jars of Clay, many Christian artists have been highly successful with this multi-layered approach to song-writing.  Show everyone something that can make them think; and give Christians something they can really chew on for a while.

At times, it’s quite clear how much she’s been influenced by Jennifer Knapp.  In many ways, this album is an homage to Knapp: she speaks freely about her struggles, engages Scripture in her lyrics, and stays musically grounded in folksy acoustic guitar rhythmic patterns.  Whitlock has said she wants to play with Knapp one day, even.

As a fan of Knapp, I’m glad another artist has such a high view of her; but I hope Whitlock will continue to branch out in her influences: the eclecticism of this album shows she is still finding herself musically. As strong as this album is with 14 tracks, I believe a more closely refined and tightly linked 9-10 tracks could have packed even more punch.  Right now her musical identity needs to catch up with her lyrical intensity. The more exposure she has to the roots of rock, the more  she will distinguish herself as an original. Her next album will undoubtedly demonstrate a heightened sense of herself, her relationship with God, and her musical prowess.

“Holding on to Me” and “Beautiful” are my favorites.  “Holding,” is especially compelling because her guest bass/drummer combo, Tony Lucido and Ben Phillips, heighten the rhythmic intensity beyond the rest of the songs.  “Beautiful” is one of those songs that can get you tapping your foot, bobbing your head, and trying to learn the lyrics more quickly so you can sing along with it in your car.  Yes, it is sugary sweet…but in such a serious album, this a welcome departure from the norm.

I am encouraged Whitlock has entered the CCM scene.  She is a breath of fresh air for those of us who love to hear thought-provoking, spiritual songs of worship.

I’ll leave you with a great excerpt from one of her blogs.  This kind of truth mixed with sincere devotion is what makes her a Christian musician worth paying attention to:

Christians are being fed a false hope. A hope that says Christ came to make life easier, to fulfill all our dreams, to give us a good life here on earth. A hope that says if we just turn our lives over to Christ, He will give us our best life now. But upon reading the Bible, one quickly discovers that misleading hope is found nowhere amongst the pages of Scripture. In fact, speaking of “this life now”, look at what 1 Cor. 15:19 says, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men”. Would you like to know what God says our hope is? This verse says it so clearly. There can be absolutely no dispute! Check it out…Titus 2:11-14. “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say NO to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed HOPE-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, eager to do what is good.”

I’d love it if in her next album, she takes this “God exists to fulfill all your dreams” deception to task.

We shall see.