We do not like authority! Have you ever noticed? The very idea that another human being has any kind of authority over us rankles. To willingly submit to the authority of another seems absurd. We all think that we could do a better job of leading, that our way is better, and that we deserve to be the one in authority.
This kind of rebellion against authority is not new. It started at the beginning, in the Garden, with a snake, a woman, a man, and the reversal of God's created order. Suddenly, I am the only authority to which I need to submit.
The rebellion has not changed or diminished since then. The nature of man demands his own independence from all authority except his own. With this in mind, to describe fatherhood with a picture of a king is in direct contrast to the willfulness of the human nature. It seems that we are putting fathers onto a powerful pedestal. It pictures for us a warrior king with his foot on the neck of his subjects (read wife and children). He wields absolute control. None dare challenge him. He rises to a place just below God.
Women and children see it and tremble. Their lives are suddenly lower than slaves. They have no power, freedom, or rights. The Man is all powerful, all controlling, all possessing.
At least that is what our culture would want us to believe about patriarchy.
The truth is that the ancient kings understood their authority very clearly. In ancient epics such as The Iliad and Beowulf, kings were described as shepherds and fathers. Their authority was absolute in that their subjects owed them complete and unwavering allegiance. But their authority was not given in order to better their own lives. Their entire existence was to guide, govern, and protect their people. Unfortunately, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If we keep in mind the original purpose of the king, a servant leader of his subjects, we have a better understanding of this picture of fatherhood. The king leads by example. He was not above the law, rather he embodied the law. He never expected his subjects to behave in ways that he could not, but he certainly punished wrong-doers for the protection of his kingdom. He was on guard against trouble within and without his kingdom. All that he did was done for the good of his kingdom.
There is much more I could say about the original intent of kingship, but for the purpose of this study in fatherhood I will limit the analogy to two key areas: example and discipline.
Good leaders lead by example and like it or not, fathers are leaders. A child will leave home with what the father has lived out in the home. Our children may not always remember our words but they will never forget our actions.
Even more important, fathers are spiritual leaders. We not only have the power to lead our children spiritually, but we also have the God-given responsibility to do so, as we have already seen. The New Testament has a lot to say about the issue of being an example to those who follow.
Jesus never commanded us to do anything that he was not willing to do. In John 13, he washed the disciples feet and then said, "If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you." (vs. 14-15) The apostle Paul lead by example and reminded the Thessalonian church about the example he gave to them. "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you..." (2 Thess. 3:7) Paul commanded Timothy, the young elder in Ephesus, to lead by example. "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." (1 Tim. 3:12) Paul also commanded Titus, a pastor in Crete, to be an example. "Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:6-8) Peter encouraged the church leaders to be examples when he said, "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to you charge, but proving to be examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:1-3)
I think that this idea of being an example is intended in Deuteronomy 6:6, "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart." The Law of God was first to be believed and followed by the fathers. It was to be a part of their lives first and foremost. Only then can verse 7 be practically applied, "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."
I sincerely believe that one of the major reasons that children raised in Christian homes abandon the faith upon leaving the home is because we have not lived out in the home what we have been teaching in the church. If I teach my children to honor their parents, they must see me honor my parents. If I teach my children not to lie, I must always speak the truth in love (even on the tax returns). If I teach my children to be faithful to God, I must be faithful to God. My children will leave home with what I have lived out in the home.
Secondly, the father is responsible for the discipline of his children.
This is a hot issue. What does discipline mean? What methods should we employ? If you read certain popular child-raising and parenting magazines, we should never use painful punishment against our children because it might permanently damage their delicate psyches. It is better to publicly humiliate them, ignore them, and effectively abandon them to their own devises. After three generations of this, one would think that someone would wise up to the fact that it simply is not working!
Here is an irony for you. Psychology is by name "the study of the soul" ('psuchos' is the Greek word for 'soul'). Psychologists by practice reject the existence of the soul! I will get my parenting advice from the Creator of the soul, thank you very much!
He says, "Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol." (Proverbs 23:13-14) The method of discipline is quite clearly portrayed for us. It is painful for the child, but the result is rescue, spiritual rescue.
Another, perhaps clearer example of this is found in Hebrews 12, where the discipline of the father is compared to that of God. "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by him; for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives... For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness." (Hebrews 12:5-6, 10-11)
The motivation for discipline is love. Because we love our children we discipline them. Loving discipline is not the raving lunatic that the media likes to portray for us as the parent who uses corporal punishment against a child. Loving discipline is calm, measured, and purposeful in metering our discipline.
The method of discipline is described as the scourge. This was a leather thong that was used to strike an offender. It was used in Hebrew households by the parents to punish their children. It was also used by the judges to punish criminals. Paul himself was scourged by the Jews for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 11:24). This is strikingly similar to the idea of the rod spoken of in the Proverbs. Somehow, God has so ordained that children will be trained best by the use of painful discipline.
Finally, the purpose of discipline is holiness and righteousness. This is a key point because holiness and righteousness do not describe simply behaviors, they indicate the very nature of the child. We are all by nature sinful (Jeremiah 17:9), objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). We can adjust our behavior to appear acceptable based upon the external influences of cultural expectations or corporal punishment. However, external behaviors are not always good indicators of what is taking place internally. A child may act rightly but this does not mean that the child is righteous. Discipline is for the purpose of producing righteousness within the child, so that their deeds are motivated by their new nature in Christ.
When viewed together, the three pictures of fatherhood, prophet, priest and king, form a complete example to us of how to be the kind of fathers that God-ordained us to be. We teach our children correct doctrine, inculcating them with this truth. We train our children by showing them, by example, how to live out the doctrine that we teach and giving them opportunities to live it out and corrections along the way. We represent God to them and act as their advocates before God. When they sin, we discipline them in love to return their feet to the paths of righteousness. As we do this consistently, with much prayer, the Bible indicates that our children will grow to become the kind of God-honoring, holy, and righteous adults that we desire them to be.
Feb 28, 2012
Feb 23, 2012
Priestly Patriarchy
As I continue to investigate the Biblical standards for godly fatherhood, a second figure emerges from the mist of our culture's lies. It is the figure of a priest.
While the prophet represents a father's responsibility to instruct, train and warn his children, the priest represents a different aspect of fatherhood.
Biblically, the priest operated in two functions. First, he represented man to God. When the Levitical priesthood was created in Exodus, it was created because the Hebrews were unable to keep the covenant they had made with God at the foot of Mount Sinai. Because of the Holiness of God and the Sinfulness of Mankind, if God was going to dwell in the midst of the Hebrews, there would have to be some safeguards to prevent God's holiness from destroying the nation.
The first of these safeguards was the tent (tabernacle) which became the temple under King Solomon's reign.
The second safeguard was the priests. No other person was allowed to approach the holy vessels. No other person was allowed to offer sacrifices or incense. No other person was allowed into the Holy Place. No one except the High Priest was allowed into the Most Holy Place, and then only once a year and not without the blood of the atoning sacrifice. Any one other than the descendants of Aaron who presumed to approach God in this way was killed (Numbers 16:1-35). It was the responsibility of the priests to represent man before God.
The second function of the priest was to represent God to man. The priest spoke blessing onto the people (Numbers 6:23-27); revealed the judgments of God by use of the Urim and Thummim, (Exodus 28:30); and confronted evil where it existed, even in high places (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).
Similarly, it is the father's God-ordained responsibility to intercede on behalf of their children and to exhort their children on behalf of God.
In the New Testament, Jesus Himself is represented as our High Priest, our Intercessor. In Hebrews 7-10, Jesus offered a better sacrifice and comes from a better priesthood than the Levitical priests. For this reason, he was able to enter once behind the veil, where he now sits to offer permanent atonement for God's people. He lives forever to make intercession on our behalf! (Hebrews 7:25)
Job recognized his responsibility to intercede on behalf of his children. "When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.' Thus Job did continually." (Job 1:5)
While I cannot always know every thought that crosses the mind of my child, I do know very well what dwells in their hearts. God says very clearly that sin has my children captivated. Apart from God's grace applied through faith, none of us can ever escape from sin's grip in our lives.
It is my responsibility and privilege to plead with God for the very souls of my children. I do not have to offer sacrifices for them as Job did because the final sacrifice has been offered and it was so perfect that to offer another would be blasphemous!
Another Intercessor in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit. "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Romans 8:26-27)
As a father, I have the responsibility and privilege to pray not only for the salvation of my children, but also for God's Will to be enacted in their lives. While much has been made of "free will", we must never limit the extent of God's ability to reach into the soul of man and change his "will". For some reason unknown to me, God uses the prayers of the saints to accomplish great and mighty things. We can see such things demonstrated throughout Scripture and not less so now. God can use the prayers of parents to reach the souls of unregenerate, sinful children and change them into regenerate, righteous men and women.
Equally God can use the prayers of parents to reveal and guide their children into His will for their lives. One prayer uttered by my mother with fear and trembling was that God would do "whatever it takes" to guide her children to follow His will. Fortunately, it did not take too much and all of her children are seeking God's will with their lives.
My priestly responsibility as father does not end when I pray for my children to be saved and follow God's will. I must also represent God before my children.
Paul closely links fatherhood with this idea in 1 Thessalonians 2:10-12, "You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory."
Fathers represent God to their children. As God's representative, I must exhort my children to live a life that is worthy of the God who calls them into His own kingdom and glory. When they sin, I must instruct them and correct them. When they display righteousness, I must affirm them and encourage them. When they are weak-willed, I must strengthen them. When they are unsure, I must guide them. When they are faced with a difficult decision, I must implore them to follow God's righteousness in all things.
I must do this. This is not an option for a godly father. This is the responsibility given and ordained by God. No one else can accomplish this task in the way that the father can.
Our instruction cannot be clearer. Our exhortation cannot be any more earnest. "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20) We have a few short years of ultimate influence in the lives of our children. Let us use these years to influence them toward God and godliness, making the most of the time because the days are evil!
While the prophet represents a father's responsibility to instruct, train and warn his children, the priest represents a different aspect of fatherhood.
Biblically, the priest operated in two functions. First, he represented man to God. When the Levitical priesthood was created in Exodus, it was created because the Hebrews were unable to keep the covenant they had made with God at the foot of Mount Sinai. Because of the Holiness of God and the Sinfulness of Mankind, if God was going to dwell in the midst of the Hebrews, there would have to be some safeguards to prevent God's holiness from destroying the nation.
The first of these safeguards was the tent (tabernacle) which became the temple under King Solomon's reign.
The second safeguard was the priests. No other person was allowed to approach the holy vessels. No other person was allowed to offer sacrifices or incense. No other person was allowed into the Holy Place. No one except the High Priest was allowed into the Most Holy Place, and then only once a year and not without the blood of the atoning sacrifice. Any one other than the descendants of Aaron who presumed to approach God in this way was killed (Numbers 16:1-35). It was the responsibility of the priests to represent man before God.
The second function of the priest was to represent God to man. The priest spoke blessing onto the people (Numbers 6:23-27); revealed the judgments of God by use of the Urim and Thummim, (Exodus 28:30); and confronted evil where it existed, even in high places (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).
Similarly, it is the father's God-ordained responsibility to intercede on behalf of their children and to exhort their children on behalf of God.
In the New Testament, Jesus Himself is represented as our High Priest, our Intercessor. In Hebrews 7-10, Jesus offered a better sacrifice and comes from a better priesthood than the Levitical priests. For this reason, he was able to enter once behind the veil, where he now sits to offer permanent atonement for God's people. He lives forever to make intercession on our behalf! (Hebrews 7:25)
Job recognized his responsibility to intercede on behalf of his children. "When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.' Thus Job did continually." (Job 1:5)
While I cannot always know every thought that crosses the mind of my child, I do know very well what dwells in their hearts. God says very clearly that sin has my children captivated. Apart from God's grace applied through faith, none of us can ever escape from sin's grip in our lives.
It is my responsibility and privilege to plead with God for the very souls of my children. I do not have to offer sacrifices for them as Job did because the final sacrifice has been offered and it was so perfect that to offer another would be blasphemous!
Another Intercessor in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit. "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Romans 8:26-27)
As a father, I have the responsibility and privilege to pray not only for the salvation of my children, but also for God's Will to be enacted in their lives. While much has been made of "free will", we must never limit the extent of God's ability to reach into the soul of man and change his "will". For some reason unknown to me, God uses the prayers of the saints to accomplish great and mighty things. We can see such things demonstrated throughout Scripture and not less so now. God can use the prayers of parents to reach the souls of unregenerate, sinful children and change them into regenerate, righteous men and women.
Equally God can use the prayers of parents to reveal and guide their children into His will for their lives. One prayer uttered by my mother with fear and trembling was that God would do "whatever it takes" to guide her children to follow His will. Fortunately, it did not take too much and all of her children are seeking God's will with their lives.
My priestly responsibility as father does not end when I pray for my children to be saved and follow God's will. I must also represent God before my children.
Paul closely links fatherhood with this idea in 1 Thessalonians 2:10-12, "You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory."
Fathers represent God to their children. As God's representative, I must exhort my children to live a life that is worthy of the God who calls them into His own kingdom and glory. When they sin, I must instruct them and correct them. When they display righteousness, I must affirm them and encourage them. When they are weak-willed, I must strengthen them. When they are unsure, I must guide them. When they are faced with a difficult decision, I must implore them to follow God's righteousness in all things.
I must do this. This is not an option for a godly father. This is the responsibility given and ordained by God. No one else can accomplish this task in the way that the father can.
Our instruction cannot be clearer. Our exhortation cannot be any more earnest. "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20) We have a few short years of ultimate influence in the lives of our children. Let us use these years to influence them toward God and godliness, making the most of the time because the days are evil!
Feb 14, 2012
Prophetic Patriarchy
How time flies! It's hard to believe that my last post was in July of last year! During this time, I have been meditating on many different theological issues. The most pressing and enthralling for me has been the issue of fatherhood as the Bible defines it. Recently, in preparation for a sermon that I hope to preach on Father's Day, I have been able to clarify some of my thoughts on this issue.
Fatherhood is something that is quite misunderstood in our culture. Because of the "revolutions" of the 1960's, fatherhood has been stripped down to its most vulgar expression. Any man who provides the necessary genetic material to create a child is a father. This is an unfortunate understanding of fatherhood because it has effectively destroyed manhood and crippled the next generation of men. If my responsibility as a father is limited strictly to the creation of a child, then what possible reason do I have to raise that child? Raising the child will in no way make me more "fatherly," so why go through the suffering and frustration?
Unfortunately, many "men" (I use the term loosely) in this generation believe this to be the case. They have "fathered" children without any accompanying responsibility except paying child support (which is a politically incorrect thing to require of a "father" if you think about it).
Here is a challenging thought: Any thirteen year old boy can father a child, but it takes a godly man to be a father to a child!
Look up the topic "father" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia and you will find these words, “He loves; commands; instructs; guides, encourages, warns; trains; rebukes; restrains; punishes; chastens; nourishes; delights in his son, and in his son’s wisdom; is deeply pained by his folly; he is considerate of his children’s needs and requests; considerate of their burdens, or sins; tenderly familiar; considerately self-restrained; having in view the highest ends; pitiful; the last human friend (but one) to desert the child.” Crannell, Philip Wendell. "Father", International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. Blue Letter Bible. 1913. 5 May 2003 30 Jan 2012. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm? type=GetTopic&Topic=Father&DictList=4#ISBE
Looking over that list, it seems almost blasphemous to attribute those responsibilities to a man. When we compare the Bible's standards with the expectations of our culture, surely this is a chauvinistic structure. In fact, patriarchy has been under heavy attack for three generations at least. The result has been weak fathers and no vision for masculinity.
As I read Scripture and meditate on my responsibilities as a father, I see a picture emerge. Three figures hidden by the mist of our culture's lies begin to step forward as representative of a father's responsibilities. The first representative of patriarchy is a prophet.
Depending upon your religious background, you may readily accept this representative or you may raise your eyebrows in question. How does a prophet represent the biblical responsibilities of fatherhood?
Typically, we understand the prophet to be one who speaks of the future. Biblically, prophets told of future events such as the destruction of nations, divine judgement, and the coming of the Messiah. It is important to realize that the ministry of the prophets was not limited to foretelling the future. Nor was foretelling the primary purpose of their ministry. The visions of the future were a platform for the true purpose of the prophet, to speak God's word into the lives of their listeners. Read the Old Testament prophets and you will see this theme: you sinned, because of your sin God will punish you, so repent and be restored. The prophecy (God's punishment is coming) was the platform for the exhortation (repent and be restored). The key for fathers is the message of God. Fathers, like prophets, must instruct their children with God's Word.
This is what Moses declared to the fathers of Israel, "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on you heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) First, fathers must know the word of God. It is useless to try to teach someone something of which we know nothing. We must study God's Word for ourselves and meditate upon it before we can speak with confidence to our children.
Secondly, we must inculcate our children with the Word of God. This is not simply telling our children, "Well, the Bible says..." This means impressing it upon our children, drilling it into their minds until it saturates their thinking. Foolish is the parent who believes that I only must give the Bible as an option and my child will have to make up their own mind. Your child is bent toward that which is evil. Given their own choice they will choose to rebel against God and reject His Word. It is our responsibility to instruct our children with the truth as though it were the only Truth, because it is!
Thirdly, our lives must be defined by God's Word. Our appearance and our homes must reveal to the world that we belong to God. Our conversations must be saturated with the Truth. Our homes must be decorated with the Truth so that the world cannot miss the point, we are God's! If the world cannot miss it, then our children will not miss it!
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word.
Fathers are responsible to train their children in righteousness.
Solomon makes this clear, "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) This is a verse that causes a lot of trouble to teachers because the promise of the verse seems to lie against the reality of what we see happening in Christian families. Interestingly, a better translation may be "Train up a child according to his way, even when he is old he will not depart from it." This speaks to understanding our child's mind and how he learns the best. If we want him to remember something, we need to train him according to his natural ability to learn, whether that be aural, visual, experiential, kinetic, or any of the other learning types that children may have.
The key is training. The picture is that of an apprentice. Before a master trusts the apprentice to do the work, he trains him. The training takes years. First the apprentice watches that master do the work, teaching takes place. Eventually, the master guides the hands of the apprentice as the apprentice does the work, training takes place. Then the master releases the apprentice to do the work under close supervision, correction takes place. Finally, confident in the training of the apprentice, the master leaves the apprentice to do the work alone. This process takes years, but at the end the apprentice becomes the master.
This is a poignant picture of child-rearing. Unfortunately, we do not grasp the training concept in Christian homes. If we want our children to grow in the faith and in knowledge of God, we must first show them and instruct them, then guide them, then observe them and correct them, before we can be certain that they fully grasp the meaning and practice of their faith.
Yet, how many of us would dare claim to be masters of the faith? Jesus makes this striking statement, "A pupil is not above his teacher, but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher." (Luke 6:40) What will my children be like? If I am the one training them, then they will be like me. Am I what I should be? Am I what I want my children to be?
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word.
Lastly, the prophet reminds us that fathers are responsible to admonish their children to ever greater godliness. Paul, discussing family relationships, makes this statement, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4) This is another key verse in child-rearing and there is a lot of doctrine buried within. I would like to focus on the word translated "instruction". This word means admonition or exhortation. It implies an instruction with a clear warning attached.
The same word is translated "warning" when Paul instructs Titus on church discipline, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning." (Titus 3:10) While I am not advocating rejecting our children after warning them once or twice, I am showing that the issue is teaching with a clear warning attached.
We do this naturally in physical matters. What parent has not made a statement like, "Don't play in the street or you'll get hit by a car!" "Don't stick your finger in the outlet or you'll get electrocuted!" "Don't play in the rain or you'll catch your death of cold!" Each of these statements are an instruction with a clear warning attached.
How much more important than the physical comfort and well-being of our children is their eternal spiritual well-being? Should we not employ this same strategy in training them toward godliness?
One of the important lessons that we must teach our children is that sin has consequences. From the minor consequences of losing a privilege to the major consequences of losing life, when we sin there are consequences. What a great opportunity then to direct their attention to the love of God in providing a way of escape through the death of Jesus!
The consequence of Sin is a broken relationship with Holy God and an eternal destiny of death in hell. Yet the Holy God, because of His great Love, showed us grace by sending His Son to receive the consequence for us, death on the cross. He who was sinless took our sin upon Himself and paid it in full so that we might be received as sons of God.
This is the first goal of our teaching, training, and exhorting! The second goal builds upon the first, to teach, train, and exhort our children to living a lifestyle worthy of the calling with which they have been called (Ephesians 4:1).
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word. This is only possible through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit!
Fatherhood is something that is quite misunderstood in our culture. Because of the "revolutions" of the 1960's, fatherhood has been stripped down to its most vulgar expression. Any man who provides the necessary genetic material to create a child is a father. This is an unfortunate understanding of fatherhood because it has effectively destroyed manhood and crippled the next generation of men. If my responsibility as a father is limited strictly to the creation of a child, then what possible reason do I have to raise that child? Raising the child will in no way make me more "fatherly," so why go through the suffering and frustration?
Unfortunately, many "men" (I use the term loosely) in this generation believe this to be the case. They have "fathered" children without any accompanying responsibility except paying child support (which is a politically incorrect thing to require of a "father" if you think about it).
Here is a challenging thought: Any thirteen year old boy can father a child, but it takes a godly man to be a father to a child!
Look up the topic "father" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia and you will find these words, “He loves; commands; instructs; guides, encourages, warns; trains; rebukes; restrains; punishes; chastens; nourishes; delights in his son, and in his son’s wisdom; is deeply pained by his folly; he is considerate of his children’s needs and requests; considerate of their burdens, or sins; tenderly familiar; considerately self-restrained; having in view the highest ends; pitiful; the last human friend (but one) to desert the child.” Crannell, Philip Wendell. "Father", International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. Blue Letter Bible. 1913. 5 May 2003 30 Jan 2012. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm? type=GetTopic&Topic=Father&DictList=4#ISBE
Looking over that list, it seems almost blasphemous to attribute those responsibilities to a man. When we compare the Bible's standards with the expectations of our culture, surely this is a chauvinistic structure. In fact, patriarchy has been under heavy attack for three generations at least. The result has been weak fathers and no vision for masculinity.
As I read Scripture and meditate on my responsibilities as a father, I see a picture emerge. Three figures hidden by the mist of our culture's lies begin to step forward as representative of a father's responsibilities. The first representative of patriarchy is a prophet.
Depending upon your religious background, you may readily accept this representative or you may raise your eyebrows in question. How does a prophet represent the biblical responsibilities of fatherhood?
Typically, we understand the prophet to be one who speaks of the future. Biblically, prophets told of future events such as the destruction of nations, divine judgement, and the coming of the Messiah. It is important to realize that the ministry of the prophets was not limited to foretelling the future. Nor was foretelling the primary purpose of their ministry. The visions of the future were a platform for the true purpose of the prophet, to speak God's word into the lives of their listeners. Read the Old Testament prophets and you will see this theme: you sinned, because of your sin God will punish you, so repent and be restored. The prophecy (God's punishment is coming) was the platform for the exhortation (repent and be restored). The key for fathers is the message of God. Fathers, like prophets, must instruct their children with God's Word.
This is what Moses declared to the fathers of Israel, "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on you heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) First, fathers must know the word of God. It is useless to try to teach someone something of which we know nothing. We must study God's Word for ourselves and meditate upon it before we can speak with confidence to our children.
Secondly, we must inculcate our children with the Word of God. This is not simply telling our children, "Well, the Bible says..." This means impressing it upon our children, drilling it into their minds until it saturates their thinking. Foolish is the parent who believes that I only must give the Bible as an option and my child will have to make up their own mind. Your child is bent toward that which is evil. Given their own choice they will choose to rebel against God and reject His Word. It is our responsibility to instruct our children with the truth as though it were the only Truth, because it is!
Thirdly, our lives must be defined by God's Word. Our appearance and our homes must reveal to the world that we belong to God. Our conversations must be saturated with the Truth. Our homes must be decorated with the Truth so that the world cannot miss the point, we are God's! If the world cannot miss it, then our children will not miss it!
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word.
Fathers are responsible to train their children in righteousness.
Solomon makes this clear, "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) This is a verse that causes a lot of trouble to teachers because the promise of the verse seems to lie against the reality of what we see happening in Christian families. Interestingly, a better translation may be "Train up a child according to his way, even when he is old he will not depart from it." This speaks to understanding our child's mind and how he learns the best. If we want him to remember something, we need to train him according to his natural ability to learn, whether that be aural, visual, experiential, kinetic, or any of the other learning types that children may have.
The key is training. The picture is that of an apprentice. Before a master trusts the apprentice to do the work, he trains him. The training takes years. First the apprentice watches that master do the work, teaching takes place. Eventually, the master guides the hands of the apprentice as the apprentice does the work, training takes place. Then the master releases the apprentice to do the work under close supervision, correction takes place. Finally, confident in the training of the apprentice, the master leaves the apprentice to do the work alone. This process takes years, but at the end the apprentice becomes the master.
This is a poignant picture of child-rearing. Unfortunately, we do not grasp the training concept in Christian homes. If we want our children to grow in the faith and in knowledge of God, we must first show them and instruct them, then guide them, then observe them and correct them, before we can be certain that they fully grasp the meaning and practice of their faith.
Yet, how many of us would dare claim to be masters of the faith? Jesus makes this striking statement, "A pupil is not above his teacher, but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher." (Luke 6:40) What will my children be like? If I am the one training them, then they will be like me. Am I what I should be? Am I what I want my children to be?
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word.
Lastly, the prophet reminds us that fathers are responsible to admonish their children to ever greater godliness. Paul, discussing family relationships, makes this statement, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4) This is another key verse in child-rearing and there is a lot of doctrine buried within. I would like to focus on the word translated "instruction". This word means admonition or exhortation. It implies an instruction with a clear warning attached.
The same word is translated "warning" when Paul instructs Titus on church discipline, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning." (Titus 3:10) While I am not advocating rejecting our children after warning them once or twice, I am showing that the issue is teaching with a clear warning attached.
We do this naturally in physical matters. What parent has not made a statement like, "Don't play in the street or you'll get hit by a car!" "Don't stick your finger in the outlet or you'll get electrocuted!" "Don't play in the rain or you'll catch your death of cold!" Each of these statements are an instruction with a clear warning attached.
How much more important than the physical comfort and well-being of our children is their eternal spiritual well-being? Should we not employ this same strategy in training them toward godliness?
One of the important lessons that we must teach our children is that sin has consequences. From the minor consequences of losing a privilege to the major consequences of losing life, when we sin there are consequences. What a great opportunity then to direct their attention to the love of God in providing a way of escape through the death of Jesus!
The consequence of Sin is a broken relationship with Holy God and an eternal destiny of death in hell. Yet the Holy God, because of His great Love, showed us grace by sending His Son to receive the consequence for us, death on the cross. He who was sinless took our sin upon Himself and paid it in full so that we might be received as sons of God.
This is the first goal of our teaching, training, and exhorting! The second goal builds upon the first, to teach, train, and exhort our children to living a lifestyle worthy of the calling with which they have been called (Ephesians 4:1).
Know God's Word. Live God's Word. Teach God's Word. This is only possible through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit!
Jul 13, 2011
A Biblical Standard of Music?
Recently, I was challenged at a conference to consider the styles of music that our children listen to as a signal of whether they respect us as parents. The speaker indicated that there are styles or genres of music that are by nature rebellious and parents need to be careful what genres of music they expose their children to as well as what genres their teenagers are listening to. This challenged me to consider what genres of music my wife and I play around the house and in the car. Would the speaker at the conference consider these genres to be "rebellious" music? What does the Bible say about genres of music? Should I shield my children from certain genres to protect them from a worldly influence through music?
As I began this study, understand that I entered with a willingness to change the music I listen to if the Holy Spirit indicated from God's Word that my music was "worldly and rebellious." Also understand that primarily the focus of my study was on the genre of music with a natural by-product being the instruments employed in those styles. The issue was not on the lyrical content of the songs, though as you will see in my conclusion, the lyrical content is vitally important in a Biblical standard of music. Finally, we must recognize that there are two spheres in the Christian's life involving music, the sacred and secular or the religious and common. That is to say that we have music that we use in Church and music that we listen to at home. Is there an overarching standard to apply in both spheres or is there one standard for religious usage and another for common usage?
To begin the study, I researched the music of the temple. King David was the initiator of temple music. He was the one who arranged the "choirs" and ranked the musicians. We can assume that music used in the temple would have to be special and unique in some way because it was played in the very presence of God! Unfortunately, I did not find a reference to the genre of music used in the temple.
Most likely the music played in the temple was very unlike the music that we are accustomed to in our modern Western culture. It was probably very Eastern in sound and would sound strange to our ears. More interestingly to our modern debate over musical styles in the church, we probably would have a very hard time "worshiping" to the style of music David used in the temple!
Since the style of music is not directly addressed, perhaps we can get a clue from the types of instruments used in the temple. Incredibly, the Old Testament has a lot to say about the instruments used in the temple. The three most commonly used were the lyre, the harp, and the cymbals. Both the lyre and harp are stringed instruments (interestingly the Hebrew for lyre is kinnowr, and the Greek for lyre is kithara which sounds to me like the Spanish word guitara!).
I also found it interesting that the Bible gives us the name of the inventor of the lyre, Jubal great-great-great-great-grandson of Cain. Genesis 4:21 says, "His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre (kinnowr: instrument of ten strings played with a plectrum) and pipe ('uwgab: double or manifold pipe; pan-pipe or reed-pipe)." I have heard some teach that we must differentiate between worldly instruments and "sacred" instruments based on the fact that Jubal was the descendent of Cain (presumably evil) and he was the father of those who played a certain kind of instrument. They add to this argument the fact that David "invented" the instruments used in the temple (2 Chronicles 7:6) and conclude that the temple instruments were different and special. I have several issues with this line of reasoning, not the least of which is that the Hebrew word for one of the instruments used in the temple is kinnowr, the very same instrument invented by Jubal.
The lyre was used by David as a young man in King Saul's court to play soothing music when Saul was oppressed by the spirit from the LORD (1 Samuel 16:23 where kinnowr is translated harp). The lyre was later used in the temple by the choirs. This does not sound like an evil instrument!
Though David "created" the instruments used in the temple, the fact is that they were the same kind of instruments invented by Jubal and used in common, non-religious settings in that culture. A modern comparison would be a guitar that is used for folk singing verses a guitar that was built to be used in a church service setting. The instruments are the same, though one is built and dedicated specifically for use in praising the LORD.
We see that the kinnowr was invented by "evil" Jubal. We see that it is used in common, non-religious applications (Genesis 31:27). We see that David used it to soothe King Saul's troubled spirit. We also see it being used to praise the LORD in the temple. One instrument being used in all of these ways seems to indicate that God does not consider instruments good or bad. The only conclusion I can derive is that there is no instrument considered so "evil", "immoral", or "vulgar" that it cannot be used in the praise of the LORD!
Now, given that the Bible does not reference the genre of music used in the temple, another interesting point that I found was that the Bible does refer to the volume of music used in praising the LORD. "Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the horn, with trumpets, with loud-sounding cymbals, with harps and lyres." (1 Chronicles 15:28; by the way in this same context David "danced" before the ark of the LORD presumably in joyful praise to the LORD. see also Exodus 15:20 for another instance of dancing used in praise) "The Levites, from the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel, with a very loud voice." (2 Chronicles 20:19) "They sang, praising and giving thanks to the LORD, saying 'For He is good, for His lovingkindness is upon Israel forever.' And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the LORD because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid." (Ezra 3:11) There are many other examples of the volume of the praise of the LORD (2 Chron. 5:12-13; Nehemiah 12:43; Psalm 33:3; 81:1; 92:3; 95:1, 2; 98:4, 6; 100:1, 2; 150:5). I cannot find any direct reference to the music used to praise the LORD being played quietly, though some translators insist that a few of the untranslatable words in Psalms referring to the music imply a quiet or plaintive mood (like Higgaion; many of the untranslatable words are assumed to refer to the instrument to be used, the melody to be played, or the voicing in which to sing the song.)
Some teachers try to conclude that the music used in the temple was unique to the temple. However, the Bible does not make that claim. We could just as easily argue from the silence of the Bible on the issue that the music used in the temple was the common, folk music of that day. In fact, it would make more sense from a musician's perspective if David wrote the Psalms to known tunes that the musicians could easily play while singing the new words of the Psalm. In modern times, we see that many hymn writers employed this tactic in writing songs for the Church, including Martin Luther.
Based solely upon the Scriptural references to music, it is impossible to build a "Biblical standard of music" that allows certain styles/genres and disallows others. At best we can boil it down to different tastes in music and happily agree to disagree. We are fortunate in America to have many local churches that employ various genres of music in their services, making it easy for each of us to find a congregation that agrees with our preferences. However, that music influences us emotionally cannot be denied (though one song may influence two people in two different ways). With this in mind, is there a Biblical principle that we can apply to music dealing with what we allow to enter our minds and influence us?
I believe the answer is yes. As an example, Philippians 4:8 says, "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right (righteous), whatever is pure (including sexually chaste), whatever is lovely (pleasing), whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence (morally excellent) and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." I think it would do damage to the verse if we tried to force the genre of music to fit into these categories, but I still think we can apply this principle to music in that the lyrical content of the music we listen to does easily fall into these areas. The songs that Christians listen to must present that which is true, honorable, righteous, sexually pure, and pleasing (i.e. to God). I would hope that the artists and their songs have good reputations, are morally excellent and worthy of praise.
If the Bible gives no clear instruction concerning the genre of music employed in praising God, is it then righteous for everyone to listen to all genres? No, because to some certain genres would cause them to stumble based upon past experiences with that genre or negative emotions/ thoughts incited by the genre. For example, I heard the story of a young man raised in the Occult. This group used the music of Beethoven during their ceremonies. This young man was saved and added to the Church but when the congregation used Beethoven's music in praise, the young man had to leave the service because of the negative thoughts and emotions that music incited within him. Romans 14:14 says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Finally, we know that the Bible gives no clear teaching on the rightness or wrongness of using certain genres in the praise of the LORD. We see that all instruments that are used in common music can also be used praising the LORD. We know that we must take care with what we allow to enter our minds including the lyrical content of the music we listen to. And we know that it is sin for certain people to listen to certain styles of music based upon their own perception of the rightness or wrongness of the style. I want to end with this thought represented by Psalm 150: every instrument, every genre, every word, every song employed or listened to by the Christian should be used to express praise to the LORD. If we cannot express praise to the LORD with it, maybe we should not listen to it or play it.
As I began this study, understand that I entered with a willingness to change the music I listen to if the Holy Spirit indicated from God's Word that my music was "worldly and rebellious." Also understand that primarily the focus of my study was on the genre of music with a natural by-product being the instruments employed in those styles. The issue was not on the lyrical content of the songs, though as you will see in my conclusion, the lyrical content is vitally important in a Biblical standard of music. Finally, we must recognize that there are two spheres in the Christian's life involving music, the sacred and secular or the religious and common. That is to say that we have music that we use in Church and music that we listen to at home. Is there an overarching standard to apply in both spheres or is there one standard for religious usage and another for common usage?
To begin the study, I researched the music of the temple. King David was the initiator of temple music. He was the one who arranged the "choirs" and ranked the musicians. We can assume that music used in the temple would have to be special and unique in some way because it was played in the very presence of God! Unfortunately, I did not find a reference to the genre of music used in the temple.
Most likely the music played in the temple was very unlike the music that we are accustomed to in our modern Western culture. It was probably very Eastern in sound and would sound strange to our ears. More interestingly to our modern debate over musical styles in the church, we probably would have a very hard time "worshiping" to the style of music David used in the temple!
Since the style of music is not directly addressed, perhaps we can get a clue from the types of instruments used in the temple. Incredibly, the Old Testament has a lot to say about the instruments used in the temple. The three most commonly used were the lyre, the harp, and the cymbals. Both the lyre and harp are stringed instruments (interestingly the Hebrew for lyre is kinnowr, and the Greek for lyre is kithara which sounds to me like the Spanish word guitara!).
I also found it interesting that the Bible gives us the name of the inventor of the lyre, Jubal great-great-great-great-grandson of Cain. Genesis 4:21 says, "His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre (kinnowr: instrument of ten strings played with a plectrum) and pipe ('uwgab: double or manifold pipe; pan-pipe or reed-pipe)." I have heard some teach that we must differentiate between worldly instruments and "sacred" instruments based on the fact that Jubal was the descendent of Cain (presumably evil) and he was the father of those who played a certain kind of instrument. They add to this argument the fact that David "invented" the instruments used in the temple (2 Chronicles 7:6) and conclude that the temple instruments were different and special. I have several issues with this line of reasoning, not the least of which is that the Hebrew word for one of the instruments used in the temple is kinnowr, the very same instrument invented by Jubal.
The lyre was used by David as a young man in King Saul's court to play soothing music when Saul was oppressed by the spirit from the LORD (1 Samuel 16:23 where kinnowr is translated harp). The lyre was later used in the temple by the choirs. This does not sound like an evil instrument!
Though David "created" the instruments used in the temple, the fact is that they were the same kind of instruments invented by Jubal and used in common, non-religious settings in that culture. A modern comparison would be a guitar that is used for folk singing verses a guitar that was built to be used in a church service setting. The instruments are the same, though one is built and dedicated specifically for use in praising the LORD.
We see that the kinnowr was invented by "evil" Jubal. We see that it is used in common, non-religious applications (Genesis 31:27). We see that David used it to soothe King Saul's troubled spirit. We also see it being used to praise the LORD in the temple. One instrument being used in all of these ways seems to indicate that God does not consider instruments good or bad. The only conclusion I can derive is that there is no instrument considered so "evil", "immoral", or "vulgar" that it cannot be used in the praise of the LORD!
Now, given that the Bible does not reference the genre of music used in the temple, another interesting point that I found was that the Bible does refer to the volume of music used in praising the LORD. "Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the horn, with trumpets, with loud-sounding cymbals, with harps and lyres." (1 Chronicles 15:28; by the way in this same context David "danced" before the ark of the LORD presumably in joyful praise to the LORD. see also Exodus 15:20 for another instance of dancing used in praise) "The Levites, from the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel, with a very loud voice." (2 Chronicles 20:19) "They sang, praising and giving thanks to the LORD, saying 'For He is good, for His lovingkindness is upon Israel forever.' And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the LORD because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid." (Ezra 3:11) There are many other examples of the volume of the praise of the LORD (2 Chron. 5:12-13; Nehemiah 12:43; Psalm 33:3; 81:1; 92:3; 95:1, 2; 98:4, 6; 100:1, 2; 150:5). I cannot find any direct reference to the music used to praise the LORD being played quietly, though some translators insist that a few of the untranslatable words in Psalms referring to the music imply a quiet or plaintive mood (like Higgaion; many of the untranslatable words are assumed to refer to the instrument to be used, the melody to be played, or the voicing in which to sing the song.)
Some teachers try to conclude that the music used in the temple was unique to the temple. However, the Bible does not make that claim. We could just as easily argue from the silence of the Bible on the issue that the music used in the temple was the common, folk music of that day. In fact, it would make more sense from a musician's perspective if David wrote the Psalms to known tunes that the musicians could easily play while singing the new words of the Psalm. In modern times, we see that many hymn writers employed this tactic in writing songs for the Church, including Martin Luther.
Based solely upon the Scriptural references to music, it is impossible to build a "Biblical standard of music" that allows certain styles/genres and disallows others. At best we can boil it down to different tastes in music and happily agree to disagree. We are fortunate in America to have many local churches that employ various genres of music in their services, making it easy for each of us to find a congregation that agrees with our preferences. However, that music influences us emotionally cannot be denied (though one song may influence two people in two different ways). With this in mind, is there a Biblical principle that we can apply to music dealing with what we allow to enter our minds and influence us?
I believe the answer is yes. As an example, Philippians 4:8 says, "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right (righteous), whatever is pure (including sexually chaste), whatever is lovely (pleasing), whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence (morally excellent) and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." I think it would do damage to the verse if we tried to force the genre of music to fit into these categories, but I still think we can apply this principle to music in that the lyrical content of the music we listen to does easily fall into these areas. The songs that Christians listen to must present that which is true, honorable, righteous, sexually pure, and pleasing (i.e. to God). I would hope that the artists and their songs have good reputations, are morally excellent and worthy of praise.
If the Bible gives no clear instruction concerning the genre of music employed in praising God, is it then righteous for everyone to listen to all genres? No, because to some certain genres would cause them to stumble based upon past experiences with that genre or negative emotions/ thoughts incited by the genre. For example, I heard the story of a young man raised in the Occult. This group used the music of Beethoven during their ceremonies. This young man was saved and added to the Church but when the congregation used Beethoven's music in praise, the young man had to leave the service because of the negative thoughts and emotions that music incited within him. Romans 14:14 says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Finally, we know that the Bible gives no clear teaching on the rightness or wrongness of using certain genres in the praise of the LORD. We see that all instruments that are used in common music can also be used praising the LORD. We know that we must take care with what we allow to enter our minds including the lyrical content of the music we listen to. And we know that it is sin for certain people to listen to certain styles of music based upon their own perception of the rightness or wrongness of the style. I want to end with this thought represented by Psalm 150: every instrument, every genre, every word, every song employed or listened to by the Christian should be used to express praise to the LORD. If we cannot express praise to the LORD with it, maybe we should not listen to it or play it.
Jun 1, 2011
Warning: Not Politically Correct!
I've been reading and thinking a lot on Genesis lately, specifically the first three chapters dealing with the creation of mankind. From this meditation, I'm beginning to develop strange ideas on anthropology (the study of man) and the theology of marriage. Following is a summary of the 'whats' and the 'whys' of my strange ideas. Feel free to comment and critique because I'm still working this one out in my head.
First of all, it is important that in Genesis 1 when God created Man, the narrative links male and female together. "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (1:26-27) Later, in Genesis 5, we read, "This is the book of the generations of Adam (man). In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man (adam) in the day when they were created." (5:1-2)
From these two passages I catch a hint of two things; that God created Man to be male and female united (don't get freaked out by this yet) and that the 'image of God' in man is complete only when Man is male and female united. It sounds odd, yet that is the best way I know to phrase it. Obviously, male and female together is pretty important to God.
The second thing that it is important to notice is that in Genesis 2 when the narrative takes a step back and focuses on the creation of Man, we see only the male being created. God had prepared the land for Man, complete with plants and animals. God prepared a garden in Eden for Man. Finally, God creates Man and places him into the garden. God instructs Man in the rules of the garden and gives him a job to do. Everything looks good, in fact, that is what God has been declaring throughout the creation "It is good."
But then we read, "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'" (2:18) For the first time God declares something in His otherwise flawless creation to be "not good." What was not good? Was the man not good? No, the man was perfect. As yet, no fault or flaw had entered Man; he was without sin. So what was not good? The man was alone.
Understand that a part of the "image of God" is answered in His Tri-Unity, or what we call the Trinity. That is to say, God exists in Himself in eternal community. Aloneness is something foreign to the "image of God," yet here was Man alone. In Man's aloneness we do not see the complete "image of God" manifested.
God's solution to this problem was to create a "helper suitable for him." Here is where I get a little stuck. What does God mean by "helper"? From our perspective, a helper is needed when I cannot do something by myself. A helper relates to imperfection or inadequacy in ability to complete work. This cannot be what God intended because Adam was perfect in his nature, without sin. He had a cushy job, tending a garden in a world without weeds or destructive insects. From a human perspective, he did not need help in completing his work.
So what does the title "helper" mean? Some smarter brains than mine cannot give clear answers to that question, but I can summarize what they have said. Basically, some have said that it means the helper provided Adam with the opportunity to experience community, something that he was unable to do alone. Is that a weak answer? Maybe, but it makes sense that the "helper" was to help Adam to do those things which he absolutely could not do or experience alone.
The next thing God does is bring every kind of creature to Adam and gives him the job of naming them all. It is interesting that God did not first create the woman to 'help' Adam in his task, but then again that was not the purpose for her creation. Adam probably began to realize, "None of these animals are like me. They don't match!" Maybe Adam was beginning to feel the "not good" that God had already noticed. None of these animals could relate to Man as an equal. None could reason like Man. None could live in community with Man. The best they could offer is a relationship of trained servitude to their master Adam. This was not what God desired for him.
The next thing we see is God anesthetizing Adam and removing his rib to create the woman. God brings the woman to Adam and Adam initiates a relationship with her, even giving her his name, "She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man." (2:23)
Here is the critical point: Woman was a helper who was suitable for man. Another way to say it is she corresponded to him; she completed him. Adam was created perfect but Man as male was incomplete without female. Just as God in His Tri-Unity lives in Himself in eternal community, so Man as male and female dwell in community. Hence, the "image of God" is completed in Man.
This has obvious implications for anthropology. In it we can see that male and female were created for unique purposes. Man was created and placed into the garden, presumably to tend it. Woman was created and brought to man, to complete him and to provide a community of equals. Much can be said on the distinctions between male and female in this regard. Suffice it to say, men are task oriented, women are relationship oriented. This was by design.
The implications for marriage might be less obvious. Often people decide to marry because they "fall in love". This is a problem because when you "fall in love" eventually you will get up, dust yourself off and realize that it was not really love but it was infatuation. I'll say it here, never, ever follow your heart (Jeremiah 17:9). "Falling in love" is the worst excuse for marriage anyone can come up with.
Instead we should look for a 'helper corresponding to him,' that person who in their character and personality complete what is lacking in us. Certainly it is a much less romantic basis for a marriage, but if we start there and build a relationship based upon mutual dedication (a reasonable interpretation of agape love) and respect, then we have the basis of a marriage that will last a lifetime. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (2:24)
First of all, it is important that in Genesis 1 when God created Man, the narrative links male and female together. "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (1:26-27) Later, in Genesis 5, we read, "This is the book of the generations of Adam (man). In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man (adam) in the day when they were created." (5:1-2)
From these two passages I catch a hint of two things; that God created Man to be male and female united (don't get freaked out by this yet) and that the 'image of God' in man is complete only when Man is male and female united. It sounds odd, yet that is the best way I know to phrase it. Obviously, male and female together is pretty important to God.
The second thing that it is important to notice is that in Genesis 2 when the narrative takes a step back and focuses on the creation of Man, we see only the male being created. God had prepared the land for Man, complete with plants and animals. God prepared a garden in Eden for Man. Finally, God creates Man and places him into the garden. God instructs Man in the rules of the garden and gives him a job to do. Everything looks good, in fact, that is what God has been declaring throughout the creation "It is good."
But then we read, "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'" (2:18) For the first time God declares something in His otherwise flawless creation to be "not good." What was not good? Was the man not good? No, the man was perfect. As yet, no fault or flaw had entered Man; he was without sin. So what was not good? The man was alone.
Understand that a part of the "image of God" is answered in His Tri-Unity, or what we call the Trinity. That is to say, God exists in Himself in eternal community. Aloneness is something foreign to the "image of God," yet here was Man alone. In Man's aloneness we do not see the complete "image of God" manifested.
God's solution to this problem was to create a "helper suitable for him." Here is where I get a little stuck. What does God mean by "helper"? From our perspective, a helper is needed when I cannot do something by myself. A helper relates to imperfection or inadequacy in ability to complete work. This cannot be what God intended because Adam was perfect in his nature, without sin. He had a cushy job, tending a garden in a world without weeds or destructive insects. From a human perspective, he did not need help in completing his work.
So what does the title "helper" mean? Some smarter brains than mine cannot give clear answers to that question, but I can summarize what they have said. Basically, some have said that it means the helper provided Adam with the opportunity to experience community, something that he was unable to do alone. Is that a weak answer? Maybe, but it makes sense that the "helper" was to help Adam to do those things which he absolutely could not do or experience alone.
The next thing God does is bring every kind of creature to Adam and gives him the job of naming them all. It is interesting that God did not first create the woman to 'help' Adam in his task, but then again that was not the purpose for her creation. Adam probably began to realize, "None of these animals are like me. They don't match!" Maybe Adam was beginning to feel the "not good" that God had already noticed. None of these animals could relate to Man as an equal. None could reason like Man. None could live in community with Man. The best they could offer is a relationship of trained servitude to their master Adam. This was not what God desired for him.
The next thing we see is God anesthetizing Adam and removing his rib to create the woman. God brings the woman to Adam and Adam initiates a relationship with her, even giving her his name, "She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man." (2:23)
Here is the critical point: Woman was a helper who was suitable for man. Another way to say it is she corresponded to him; she completed him. Adam was created perfect but Man as male was incomplete without female. Just as God in His Tri-Unity lives in Himself in eternal community, so Man as male and female dwell in community. Hence, the "image of God" is completed in Man.
This has obvious implications for anthropology. In it we can see that male and female were created for unique purposes. Man was created and placed into the garden, presumably to tend it. Woman was created and brought to man, to complete him and to provide a community of equals. Much can be said on the distinctions between male and female in this regard. Suffice it to say, men are task oriented, women are relationship oriented. This was by design.
The implications for marriage might be less obvious. Often people decide to marry because they "fall in love". This is a problem because when you "fall in love" eventually you will get up, dust yourself off and realize that it was not really love but it was infatuation. I'll say it here, never, ever follow your heart (Jeremiah 17:9). "Falling in love" is the worst excuse for marriage anyone can come up with.
Instead we should look for a 'helper corresponding to him,' that person who in their character and personality complete what is lacking in us. Certainly it is a much less romantic basis for a marriage, but if we start there and build a relationship based upon mutual dedication (a reasonable interpretation of agape love) and respect, then we have the basis of a marriage that will last a lifetime. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (2:24)
May 4, 2011
Pray and Pray and Pray!
It seems that every year as we approach the National Day of Prayer, 2 Chronicles 7:14 is brought out, dusted off, and applied to the United States as a sort of talisman whereby we can ensure the continued prosperity of our country. Some claim that this verse teaches that if Christians pray, then God will make America prosperous and restore Christian morality to this once Christian country. This and other similar teachings of this verse are wrong and do not accurately deal with the verse in its context and in its specific application.
In understanding any verse in the Bible, the first thing to realize is that context is king. That means we have to know what is happening in the verses surrounding the verse in question in order to have a clear grasp on the meaning of the verse.
2 Chronicles 7 is a response to 2 Chronicles 6, in which Solomon is praying a dedication over the newly built temple. Hear some of Solomon's words:
"Listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel when they pray toward this place; Hear from Your dwelling place, from heaven; hear and forgive." (6:21)
"If your people Israel are defeated before an enemy because they have sinned against You, and they return to You and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication before You in this house... When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, and they pray toward this place and confess You name, and turn from their sin when You afflict them... If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence, if there is blight or mildew, if there is locust or grasshopper, if their enemies besiege them in the land of their cities, whatever plague or whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer of supplication is made by any man or by all Your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own pain, and spreading his hands toward this house, then hear from heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know for You alone know the hearts of the sons of men, that they may fear You, to walk in Your ways as long as they live in the land which You have given to our fathers." (6:24, 26, 28-31)
In the context, Solomon is recognizing a promise which Moses gave to the people of Israel. Namely, God will bless you if you obey His commands and He will curse you if you disobey His commands (see Deuteronomy 27-31). In Moses' last instructions to the people, he warned them of the cycles of judgment that God would bring upon them if they did not walk in all His ways. Recognizing this and the people's propensity to rebelling against God's ways (see the Judges), Solomon requested that God act with mercy toward His people when, in the midst of the curse against their rebellion, they repented and called upon His name.
With this context as the backdrop of chapter 7, we then need to recognize that verse 14 is a central verse in a longer section recording God's answer to Solomon. God's response is:
"I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place. For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually." (7:12-16) God's response continues in the following verses in a more personal message to Solomon, but verses 12-16 are a direct response to Solomon's prayer and form the immediate context of verse 14.
What is the basic theological statement of 2 Chronicles 7:14?
First, we understand that God is holy and as such must judge sin. This is not an option for God; His nature demands the judgment of all sin. In the New Testament and for the Church we must recognize that this judgment was levied against the Person of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, we also must recognize that God does discipline His erring child (Hebrews 12:7-11).
Second, we must realize that the Holy God who must judge sin is also the Merciful God who is willing to forgive the sin of the penitent (1 John 1:9).
What kind of application can we then make for the Church in America?
If God was required by His very nature to judge the sin of Israel, His covenant people, by cursing their property, their livestock, and their persons, then God owes America nothing better considering He has no covenant with us as a nation. As a nation, we have turned our backs on the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this nation was founded. We have invested ourselves in every form of evil from ages past and have spent ourselves inventing knew evil. We have called good evil and evil good. Every judgment of Romans 1 against the wickedness of humanity is point by point an indictment against our nation. Do we deserve anything less than the strictest, harshest judgment of the Holy God?
What must we do? What can we do if we desire to avoid the pending doom of our nation?
"If My people, which are called by My name (the New Testament Church), shall humble themselves (recognize and mourn for their sin and the sin of their country), and pray (beg for mercy from the Holy God and Righteous Judge), and seek My face (strive to enter the Presence of God and to know Him, the only true God in which is eternal life; John 17:3), and turn from their wicked ways (repent of the lifestyle of sin which we had been living, which brought the judgment, and willfully follow God's ways); then will I hear from heaven (God's eyes will be open and His ears attentive to our prayers, a powerful statement when we recognize the transcendence of God coupled with His desire to be intimate with us), and will forgive their sin (whatever the sin was which produced the judgment, God will remember it no more; Jeremiah 31:34, Hebrews 8:12), and will heal their land (God's judgments against Israel were specifically against the physical property of the people, i.e. famine, locust, and pestilence. This speaks of a reversal of the curse, an end of the judgment).
We must understand that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is not a promise from God that if Christians pray for a political renewal or economic resurgence, that God will bless America. Instead, it is a promise that if Christians recognize and repent of the sinful, idolatrous lifestyles that we live, then God will end or at lest waylay impending judgment.
The prophet Daniel understood this. In Daniel 6:10, "Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously."
In Daniel 9:3-5, "So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes (humility). I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, 'Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from You commandments and ordinances.'"
In understanding any verse in the Bible, the first thing to realize is that context is king. That means we have to know what is happening in the verses surrounding the verse in question in order to have a clear grasp on the meaning of the verse.
2 Chronicles 7 is a response to 2 Chronicles 6, in which Solomon is praying a dedication over the newly built temple. Hear some of Solomon's words:
"Listen to the supplications of Your servant and of Your people Israel when they pray toward this place; Hear from Your dwelling place, from heaven; hear and forgive." (6:21)
"If your people Israel are defeated before an enemy because they have sinned against You, and they return to You and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication before You in this house... When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You, and they pray toward this place and confess You name, and turn from their sin when You afflict them... If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence, if there is blight or mildew, if there is locust or grasshopper, if their enemies besiege them in the land of their cities, whatever plague or whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer of supplication is made by any man or by all Your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own pain, and spreading his hands toward this house, then hear from heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know for You alone know the hearts of the sons of men, that they may fear You, to walk in Your ways as long as they live in the land which You have given to our fathers." (6:24, 26, 28-31)
In the context, Solomon is recognizing a promise which Moses gave to the people of Israel. Namely, God will bless you if you obey His commands and He will curse you if you disobey His commands (see Deuteronomy 27-31). In Moses' last instructions to the people, he warned them of the cycles of judgment that God would bring upon them if they did not walk in all His ways. Recognizing this and the people's propensity to rebelling against God's ways (see the Judges), Solomon requested that God act with mercy toward His people when, in the midst of the curse against their rebellion, they repented and called upon His name.
With this context as the backdrop of chapter 7, we then need to recognize that verse 14 is a central verse in a longer section recording God's answer to Solomon. God's response is:
"I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place. For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually." (7:12-16) God's response continues in the following verses in a more personal message to Solomon, but verses 12-16 are a direct response to Solomon's prayer and form the immediate context of verse 14.
What is the basic theological statement of 2 Chronicles 7:14?
First, we understand that God is holy and as such must judge sin. This is not an option for God; His nature demands the judgment of all sin. In the New Testament and for the Church we must recognize that this judgment was levied against the Person of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). However, we also must recognize that God does discipline His erring child (Hebrews 12:7-11).
Second, we must realize that the Holy God who must judge sin is also the Merciful God who is willing to forgive the sin of the penitent (1 John 1:9).
What kind of application can we then make for the Church in America?
If God was required by His very nature to judge the sin of Israel, His covenant people, by cursing their property, their livestock, and their persons, then God owes America nothing better considering He has no covenant with us as a nation. As a nation, we have turned our backs on the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this nation was founded. We have invested ourselves in every form of evil from ages past and have spent ourselves inventing knew evil. We have called good evil and evil good. Every judgment of Romans 1 against the wickedness of humanity is point by point an indictment against our nation. Do we deserve anything less than the strictest, harshest judgment of the Holy God?
What must we do? What can we do if we desire to avoid the pending doom of our nation?
"If My people, which are called by My name (the New Testament Church), shall humble themselves (recognize and mourn for their sin and the sin of their country), and pray (beg for mercy from the Holy God and Righteous Judge), and seek My face (strive to enter the Presence of God and to know Him, the only true God in which is eternal life; John 17:3), and turn from their wicked ways (repent of the lifestyle of sin which we had been living, which brought the judgment, and willfully follow God's ways); then will I hear from heaven (God's eyes will be open and His ears attentive to our prayers, a powerful statement when we recognize the transcendence of God coupled with His desire to be intimate with us), and will forgive their sin (whatever the sin was which produced the judgment, God will remember it no more; Jeremiah 31:34, Hebrews 8:12), and will heal their land (God's judgments against Israel were specifically against the physical property of the people, i.e. famine, locust, and pestilence. This speaks of a reversal of the curse, an end of the judgment).
We must understand that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is not a promise from God that if Christians pray for a political renewal or economic resurgence, that God will bless America. Instead, it is a promise that if Christians recognize and repent of the sinful, idolatrous lifestyles that we live, then God will end or at lest waylay impending judgment.
The prophet Daniel understood this. In Daniel 6:10, "Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously."
In Daniel 9:3-5, "So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes (humility). I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, 'Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from You commandments and ordinances.'"
Apr 12, 2011
Integrated Holiness
Today I was thinking about Paul's words to the Corinthian church concerning their good deeds. I find it very interesting that a church could exist that was as young as the Corinthian church yet as completely carnal as they were! They were seeking to somehow integrate their religion with their pagan lifestyles and still be acceptable to God. In fact, an early heresy was arising which basically taught that it was perfectly acceptable to commit sinful acts because our bodies are evil and only our spirits can be righteous. The Corinthians were practicing this heresy with gusto!
Paul speaks directly to this issue in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. The men in the church were apparently participating in the use of the temple prostitutes in Corinth. Their reasoning from a spiritual perspective was that they were free in Christ, "All things are lawful for me!" (1 Corinthians 6:12) From a physical perspective, they reasoned that their bodies were made for sexual intercourse, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food!" (6:13)
In many ways, I can see this same thinking permeating Christianity in our time and culture. Christians use biblical sounding arguments to integrate their religion with their pagan lifestyles. They claim that they are free in Christ, they are not bound to the Law of Moses, so they can act in sinful ways contrary to the holy requirements of their God. They also point to their createdness as an excuse for sinful behavior. Because God created them to enjoy this, then it must be good. Unfortunately, they also point to God's love and forgiveness as an escape, "God will forgive me for doing this."
Paul's response to this nonsense was to inform the Christian that you do not belong to yourself. This life is not about you. Salvation is not fire insurance. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (6:19-20)
I am reminded of the temple in Jerusalem, created to be the center of the worship of the LORD God on earth. As the kings of Judah became more wicked, that purpose was changed. The temple became the center of worship of many gods, all the hosts of heaven (2 Chronicles 33:4-5, 7-8). In Ezekiel 8, the prophet describes a vision of the temple of God in Jerusalem in which the temple is filled with profanity, filth, and false worship. The evil is so great that the LORD finally declares his judgment on Jerusalem (8:17-18).
I wonder if the temple of our body looks like that to the Lord. As we justify our sinful behaviors, does God see profanity in His temple? As we choose to watch TV instead of meditate on God's Word, does God see an idol of jealousy? As we sing songs and offer prayers on Sunday morning but ignore God the rest of the week, does God see the false priests offering incense in false worship?
Paul's conclusion was that we are to glorify God in our bodies! That means in the way we live our lives, God is to be glorified or made known through our physical behavior! We cannot make a claim of godliness if we live a sinful life. We cannot be good representatives of the Holy God if we live contrary to that holiness. The Faith to which we are called must be expressed through holiness in our lifestyles!
And lest we are sidetracked by living only outward holiness, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for just that! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:25-28)
The point is integrated holiness. It begins with a new nature brought about by our new life in Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1-11). It reveals itself to the glory of God through the holy lifestyle to which we have been called (1 Peter 1:13-16).
May we reject the passivity of living down to our pagan culture and choose instead to live up to the calling with which we have been called!
Paul speaks directly to this issue in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. The men in the church were apparently participating in the use of the temple prostitutes in Corinth. Their reasoning from a spiritual perspective was that they were free in Christ, "All things are lawful for me!" (1 Corinthians 6:12) From a physical perspective, they reasoned that their bodies were made for sexual intercourse, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food!" (6:13)
In many ways, I can see this same thinking permeating Christianity in our time and culture. Christians use biblical sounding arguments to integrate their religion with their pagan lifestyles. They claim that they are free in Christ, they are not bound to the Law of Moses, so they can act in sinful ways contrary to the holy requirements of their God. They also point to their createdness as an excuse for sinful behavior. Because God created them to enjoy this, then it must be good. Unfortunately, they also point to God's love and forgiveness as an escape, "God will forgive me for doing this."
Paul's response to this nonsense was to inform the Christian that you do not belong to yourself. This life is not about you. Salvation is not fire insurance. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (6:19-20)
I am reminded of the temple in Jerusalem, created to be the center of the worship of the LORD God on earth. As the kings of Judah became more wicked, that purpose was changed. The temple became the center of worship of many gods, all the hosts of heaven (2 Chronicles 33:4-5, 7-8). In Ezekiel 8, the prophet describes a vision of the temple of God in Jerusalem in which the temple is filled with profanity, filth, and false worship. The evil is so great that the LORD finally declares his judgment on Jerusalem (8:17-18).
I wonder if the temple of our body looks like that to the Lord. As we justify our sinful behaviors, does God see profanity in His temple? As we choose to watch TV instead of meditate on God's Word, does God see an idol of jealousy? As we sing songs and offer prayers on Sunday morning but ignore God the rest of the week, does God see the false priests offering incense in false worship?
Paul's conclusion was that we are to glorify God in our bodies! That means in the way we live our lives, God is to be glorified or made known through our physical behavior! We cannot make a claim of godliness if we live a sinful life. We cannot be good representatives of the Holy God if we live contrary to that holiness. The Faith to which we are called must be expressed through holiness in our lifestyles!
And lest we are sidetracked by living only outward holiness, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for just that! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness." (Matthew 23:25-28)
The point is integrated holiness. It begins with a new nature brought about by our new life in Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1-11). It reveals itself to the glory of God through the holy lifestyle to which we have been called (1 Peter 1:13-16).
May we reject the passivity of living down to our pagan culture and choose instead to live up to the calling with which we have been called!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)