Aftershadowers

I have been thinking and reading a lot about the church in the past few years, and I have been praying that our local church would be a shining example for our community and world. I have also been thinking about relationships lately, including and especially the marriage relationship. Today, I was reminded of a prophecy that helps me see another link between these categories.

In the Old Testament, Psalm 34:20 says, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken." According to the subtitle in the ESV, this psalm is "of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, so that he drove him out, and he went away." In writing this psalm, David is probably rejoicing that God protected even David's bones in this confrontation with his enemy, but he is also extrapolating from his circumstances to the circumstances of the righteous, making many proverbial statements leading up to this declaration of protection as he reminds the reader that "the Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit," delivering the righteous out of all their afflictions.

If I read this Psalm on its own merits, I am encouraged to "taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8), but I miss another level of meaning revealed by Jesus in John 19:36, where he quotes Psalm 34:20. John is describing the crucifixion of Jesus, when, at the request of the Jews, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of each of the thieves who were crucified with Jesus so that they would die in time to be removed before the Sabbath. When the soldiers approached Jesus, he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. John claims that Psalm 34:20 prophesies this event, but, without John's insight, I would certainly have missed that connection. In fact, in retrospect, my initial instinct is that John was grasping for meaning beyond the original intent of David in writing that psalm. After all, David does not explicitly identify his statement as a prophecy, and the context feels more like an exhortation to God's people to enjoy the benefits of their salvation from God as they live righteous lives.

In making this assessment, I am too near-sighted and too self-focused. I am reading the text to look for a personal application. I have forgotten that Jesus came "that the scripture would be fulfilled." All of the Old Testament is preparation for Jesus, looking ahead to Jesus, the Messiah who would save his people. In particular, Jesus was declared to be the son of David (Matt. 22:41-46) while also being David's Lord. Thus, David was a particularly important "type" of Jesus, his life and words foreshadowing Jesus. David's entire life was intended by God to foreshadow the coming Messiah, including the seemingly small detail that David's bones were not broken in his escape from Abimelech.

Now, I want to connect these concepts to the concept of marriage. In Ephesians 5:23, Paul writes that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Paul has provided us with an analogy, stating that the husband is the Christ-figure in the marriage relationship. Thus, just as David was used as a type, an example, a foreshadower, of Christ, so husbands are called to be examples or "aftershadowers" of Christ. David's example was not one of sinless perfection, but God used his life and circumstances to prepare his people for the coming Messiah and to explain the Messiah to those of us who live in the present age. In the same way, then, husbands are called to be "aftershadowers" of Christ, reverse prophecies that point back in time to Christ while also pointing to Christ in eternity, loving our wives as Christ loved the church so that the world will see our living examples and thereby "taste and see that the Lord is good."

The God Who Spins

This morning, our congregation opened the singing portion of our worship with these words as a modern chorus added to a classic hymn, Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee:

We sing in jubilation adoration to a joyful King
You are spinning and You are singing
Zealous love over all Your children

Spinning? Huh? What's with that? I couldn't ask our congregation to sing a song about our Lord "spinning" without a clear biblical explanation. So, in preparing for this morning, I did some homework. Thankfully, the writers of that chorus (Charlie Hall and Trent Austin) appear to have been studying their Hebrew. In Isaiah 65:17-19 (ESV), the prophet attributes these words our Lord, Yahweh:

"For behold, I create new heavens
      and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
      or come into mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
      in that which I create;
for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy,
      and her people to be a gladness.
I will rejoice in Jerusalem
      and be glad in my people;
no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping
      and the cry of distress."

I don't know Hebrew, but my digital interlinear Bible and lexicon tell me that the noun and verb forms of the same Hebrew root word (gyl, גִּיל) are translated joy and rejoice in this passage. Now, here's where this gets interesting. According to Strong, this root means "to spin round (under the influence of any violent emotion)."^[1] Thus, in this verse, the only reference I can find in the Old Testament where the subject for this particular Hebrew verb is God, Isaiah uses the word for rejoice that has a sense of motion, of spinning. 

Now, I know that "God is spirit" (John 4:24), so this sense of motion is likely not within the bounds of the time-space continuum. However, I think God gave these words to Isaiah so that we would understand that this rejoicing is that uninhibited, no-holds-barred, dancing, singing, shouting, whooping, and hollering type of rejoicing that we barely sample just a few times in our earthly existence. Importantly, we are commanded earlier in this same passage, using that same verb, to rejoice forever in God's creation, his people, the church.

I am reminded of my daughter as a young girl. She had an affinity for a particular type of dress, the dress with a full skirt that opened up as she spun around. We called these dresses "spinny dresses." At times, when she could not contain her joy, she would just spin and spin and spin some more in her spinny dress. This childlike expression of unrestrained joy is the heart attitude that I seek as I worship God. I look forward to that future state in the new heavens and the new earth in which I will see my Lord rejoice and be glad in his people, and I will rejoice and be glad with his people. Hallelujah, praise God!

---

^[1] Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 2, p. 27). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Real Men Reject Passivity

This Sunday is week two of six in The Art of Marriage, a class Sarah and I are facilitating at church.  The Scriptural focus for this week is Genesis 3, the most important chapter in the whole Bible for understanding the Christian worldview.  This chapter explains why things are as they are, providing the reason for death and suffering but also providing the first glimpse of the gospel.  That glimpse is encapsulated in verse 15,

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.” (NIV)

In speaking to the serpent, the Lord God (Yahweh Elohim) makes the first messianic prophecy recorded in all of history, the Protoevangelium.  From the beginning of sin, God planned to deliver His people by crushing the head of Satan.

How did humanity find itself in need of a Savior?  Earlier verses in this chapter clearly show the path to sin.  While there are many lessons we can glean from this passage, in the context of the husband-wife relationship, one important lesson strikes me as a husband: Adam is credited with the sin.  Sure, Eve is also at fault, but God curses the ground because of Adam.  All of creation groans (Romans 8:22) because Adam "listened to [his] wife and ate from the tree."  The Hebrew word for listened is shama, suggests that Adam yielded to or obeyed his wife.  He agreed to follow her rather than obey God.

I think Adam's sin is largely the sin of passivity.  Rather than actively asserting God's command and correcting his wife, he passively went along with her suggestion to eat the fruit.  Then, when confronted by God, Adam blames Eve.  He even blames God for giving Adam this woman.  Rather than leading his wife away from sin, Adam passively followed her into sin, choosing a way of life marred with curses and a broken relationship with his creator.

When my son was young, I learned about Robert Lewis's four principles of biblical manhood.  Lewis teaches that "real men" (1) reject passivity, (2) accept responsibility, (3) lead courageously, and (4) expect the greater reward.  Genesis 3 reveals the consequences of failing to be a "real man."  In one brief series of events, Adam disobeyed God by (1) passively accepting Eve's plan to disobey God, (2) failing to accept responsibility for his passivity, (3) following into sin rather than leading away from sin, and (4) accepting a lesser reward rather than expecting the greater reward.  Men would be wise to learn from Adam's mistake by resisting our natural tendency toward passivity.  We must actively and relentlessly pursue our true calling in Christ.

Horace Mann's Legacy

I am struggling with a personal dilemma.  I feel an extremely strong conviction that I know something that can help millions of parents and their children, as well as our nation and world.  This conviction is rooted in a personal experience.  Statisticians may not be persuaded because my personal sample size is small, but others who share my values have had similar personal experiences.  My dilemma is simple.  I want to boldly encourage all of my friends and acquaintances to seriously consider my advice, but I know my view can be offensive to many.  Because my opinion on this matter relates to parenting, the subject touches very sensitive emotional tissue.  I do not want to alienate and polarize; I just want to challenge, exhort, and motivate.  I want to encourage parents to make a thoughtful, carefully reasoned decision rather than continue to follow the same path chosen by their parents because of tradition, inertia, and convenience:  "I turned out just fine.  Why should I expect things to be any different for my kids?"

Earlier this week, I watched a documentary that had been collecting dust on our shelf for a few months.  As the film began, I grew increasingly nervous that it was another low-grade, low-budget attempt by a Michael Moore wannabe who shared my values and perspective on a particular issue.  Early segments of the film included interviews of individuals who lacked credibility and name recognition.  And it didn't help that the narrator had a Scottish accent.  But then, the film took a turn in a better direction as the narrative began to build a strong case through personal vignettes, interviews of respected Christian leaders, and a brief timeline of the history of education in America.

I found the brief history of education to be the most compelling.  In short, the film shows how public education has gradually but successfully replaced the influence of parents and churches with that of the government.  Furthermore, that government has grown increasingly hostile to Judeo-Christian morals and philosophy.  What should our response be?  I would humbly submit that those who believe that truth is absolute and that Judeo-Christian values are the only stable foundation for achieving life, liberty, and true happiness must avoid subjecting their children to government-controlled education, which promotes the anti-Christian views of humanism, moral relativism, naturalism, and atheism.  Horace Mann, often called the father of American public education, argued in 1849 that "our [public school] system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible..."  This Unitarian may have meant well in his effort to provide schools for "the children of the entire community," but we have drifted far away from that situation.

In closing, consider these words from two humanists whose words reveal the progressive agenda for shaping public, government-led education in America:

"... education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction....  I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God." (John Dewey, "My Pedagogic Creed," 1897)

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" (Charles F. Potter, "Humanism: A New Religion," 1930)

In my opinion, responsible Christians must prayerfully consider pursuing alternatives to government-sponsored public education for the sake of their children's souls and minds.  I think a mass exodus from government schools is the best option.

Grammar, Informal Logic, and Theodicy

This week, media outlets around the nation swarmed like sharks to blood when the GOP's Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said, "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."  This comment set off a political firestorm, with both major political parties distancing themselves from Mourdock's statement.  The Democratic National Committee Chairwoman released a statement that "Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women."  A more careful examination of the statement and the response prompts an important grammar lesson and a deeper theological reflection.

First, ambiguous pronouns are very dangerous.  Mourdock's "it" leaves an opening for his political enemies.  The context of his statement is clear:  when he uses the pronoun "it," he is referring to life.  He means that God has ordained the existence of a new life, a new human being.  He is not referring to the act of rape.  The response of the Democratic Party is predictable, as the Chairwoman employs the fallacy of ambiguity or equivocation by taking the clear context and shifting the reference of the ambiguous pronoun to the "situation of rape."  Certainly the Democratic Party does not think that a new life is outrageous and demeaning to women, especially when half of all new lives are women!

Second, this exchange prompts a much deeper question:  what is God's role in rape?  Theologians have struggled with the more general form of this question for centuries:  What is God's role in sin?  If God is sovereign, does He cause a person to sin?  Or, does He passively allow a person to sin by taking a hands-off role in the affairs of humans?  Or, is He not completely sovereign over the events in a fallen world?  These questions do not just apply to the sinful acts of human beings but also to the events of a Genesis 3 world.  In Genesis 3, God's Word says that God cursed the ground, decreeing that the earth would now produce thorns and thistles and that man would physically die.  In making this decree, did God commit an evil act?

As stated in numerous statements of faith and church constitutions,

“God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs, and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any way to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.”

The difficult theological issue regarding God's role with respect to evil is labeled "theodicy."  Jesus' words in the New Testament teach us about two kinds of evil:  moral evil associated with the willful deeds of sinful people (Luke 13) and natural evil that is not a direct result of a particular sin (John 9).  With respect to both kinds of evil, the orthodox Christian response to a question of the causality of evil must acknowledge the omnipotence and omniscience of God, His sovereignty over all things.  In addition, the believer must acknowledge that God is pure righteousness and goodness.  In the case of evil, these two aspects of God's character lead to a tension that we finite humans cannot fully understand. 

Nevertheless, in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, we should see clearly that two wrongs do not make a right.  The evil of rape is not corrected by the evil of murder.  The pregnant woman does not face a moral dilemma just because she was raped.  Without question, she has suffered as the victim of a heinous crime, and her life will certainly be irreversibly changed.  She is a valuable human being, created in the image of God, who needs the love and compassion of her family, friends, and society... just like the child in her womb.

Meaning and Purpose – True Success and Significance

I have been recently studying, reflecting, and praying along two parallel streams of thought. First, I have approached the conclusion of a four-year study of the worldviews of the Western world. I have studied the writings of many of the great thinkers in the history of man. I have traced the course of western thinking from the Greeks and the Romans to the Renaissance of southern Europe to the Reformation of northern Europe to the founding of a nation on principles rooted in the absolute truths of Christianity to the rejection of those truths in favor of the arbitrary whims of naturalistic humanism. At the same time, in a second stream of thought, I have been reflecting on my calling, my purpose: how do I strive for significance in God’s eyes rather than success in man’s eyes? I believe that I am more than a collection of molecules driven by a complex, biochemical computer that is deterministically governed by fixed laws of nature; the entity I call myself is not limited to the material world that we can see, touch, and measure. I believe in the supernatural, including a good and active Creator who has created me in His image. Believing that God has a purpose for my life gives me a sense of meaning. Without that belief, I would descend into nihilism, a hopeless existence trapped by the conflict of a self-aware entity that exists by chance as the most advanced machine yet to exist in this part of the vast universe. To escape that nihilism, I would probably choose the drugs of the 21st century: fame and fortune. I would try to drown my feelings of meaningless in hyperactivity, running from one activity to the next, keeping so busy that I do not have time to ask why I am so busy. I would strive to earn more so I can buy more so I can distract myself more. In addition, I would avoid thinking about the future, because the future for that life ends with a mass of chemicals no longer driven by a complex, biochemical computer.

In light of these streams of thought, as my oldest child approaches the end of his high school career, I am reminded of the attitude I inherited from the culture of the 1980s: Why go to college? To earn a degree that will enable me to earn more money. Why earn more money? To enable my children to go to college. This circular reasoning, a significant factor in the guidance I received as a young person, is inherently flawed. While education itself is not a bad thing – it is a good thing – my personal meaning and purpose for existence can and should be so much more than striving for personal peace and affluence. The search for personal peace and affluence leads to pessimism for the thinking person or continuous entertainment and amusement for the person who chooses distraction over nihilism. What do I hope my children will answer if asked for their reason for attending college? Likewise, what drives me to continue to learn and grow and strive for something bigger than myself? “To fulfill my calling from God, a vocation in which I work because I love Him and I love others, a role wherein I feel God’s pleasure as I serve him and others using the particular gifts He has given to me.”

What is Love?

What is love? In recent years, wise men have said, “Love’s not a feeling.” However, can the love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man be love if it has no feeling? I think not. Emotions are a gift from God. Even before the Fall, Adam expressed strong emotions about Eve. When Adam first saw Eve, he said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

The NIV sets this text apart from the surrounding prose as if this is not just a sentence; these lines are presented as a poem. The ESV translates the first line of this poem, “This at last…” It seems that Adam was announcing, with an exclamation point and even a sense of both relief and excitement that, finally, God had provided a truly suitable partner. Because of God’s provision of Eve, Adam may have uttered the first love poem from a man to a woman. Clearly, God wired us to have passionate feelings about our spouses.

While passion is important, I believe that life includes various phases where God works in our hearts and lives in different ways, focusing on some aspects of our soul rather than others. Perhaps a season of passion in a husband-wife relationship may be followed by a season of intellectual growth, for example. Regardless, our love must follow Christ’s pattern, in which his love ultimately fulfilled the law (Rom. 13:10). Christ’s love led to giving his life out of love for his people. Likewise, the husband must in essence lay down his life for his wife, and vice-versa. How? Before he gave his life, Christ taught that the law can be boiled down to two commands: love God and love others. Clearly, such love is expressed in a multitude of ways, by various means, in a relationship. Effective love for others is positive, encouraging, and helpful: “…love builds up." (I Cor. 8:1)

The Apostle Paul also teaches, “Let love be genuine…” (Rom. 12:9) Our world is filled with illegitimate love. The media promotes love of an image rather than true love for a person. Adolescent infatuation and unashamed lust have been substituted for the selfless love of the Bible. These are not true love and are devices used by the kingdom of darkness to prevent and destroy God-centered marriages.