Tuesday, April 23, 2024

An Evaluation of Children's Church Songs

I have an atypical daughter. Despite all the baby books stating that infants sleep 10-12 hours during the night, along with 2 hour-long naps during the day, for a total of 12-14 hours of sleep, my daughter has proved the exception. On good nights, she only wakes up once in the middle of the night, and on bad nights, she wakes up every hour. As for her daytime naps, she prefers to nap only half hour instead of an hour. Whether daytime naps or nighttime bedtime, it takes a while to get her sleeping. At the advice of many baby books and baby website, I find the most effective way to get her to fall asleep is by singing. Naturally, I turn to the songs I learned in church as a child. Upon singing these children's church songs now as a grown adult with a bachelors in Bible Education, a Masters in Divinity and as a Ph.D. candidate in Biblical Studies, however, some of these songs I find peculiar, while other songs rub me the wrong way. In the past, I have been particularly hard on contemporary praise & worship songs. It only seems fair to be equally hard on children's church music. Below I have picked out the children's church songs I sing to my daughter on a regular basis, all of which I learned as a child myself. I will grade each song with a pass/fail grade, and then I will give my reasoning why.

JESUS LOVES ME: This song is probably the most famous of the bunch, and it deserves it. It teaches children 1) Jesus loves them, 2) the Bible teaches them about Jesus's love, 3) that all children belong to Jesus, and 4) they can always find their power and strength in Jesus, even when they are weak and have no agency of their own. Jesus Loves Me clearly gets a PASS.

JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN: This song is probably the second most famous song of the group, and it deserves it. Not only does the song hammer down on the doctrine that Jesus loves the little children (see Matthew 19:13-15/Mark 10:13-16/Luke 18:15-17), it also hammers down on the fact that Jesus loves the children of all races (see Revelation 7:9), which should hopefully take the right steps on fighting the sin of racism that could develop within a child. Jesus Love the Little Children obviously gets a PASS.

THE B-I-B-L-E: This song does an important job of teaching children that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the Bible is the strong foundation on which the Christian's beliefs stand. My only hesitancy is the spelling part, for children unable to spell, or even read for that matter, may not know what they are spelling, and instead think they are just naming random letters. Some iterations of the song end by having the child yell, "BIBLE!" which would mitigate my hesitation. Still, I give the B-I-B-L-E song a PASS.

I AM A C: If the spelling part of the B-I-B-L-E song gave me a slight hesitancy, then I Am A C gives me a strong hesitancy. There is way too much spelling in this song. Don't get me wrong, the doctrine is good. It teaches that every Christian has Christ in their heart, and that a bonus of Christ in your heart means you get to live eternally, as stated in John 3:16. It's just that there's too much spelling. As stated above, for the children unable to spell, or read for that matter, in their minds, they are just spouting random letters. Even for the kid with a basic understanding of reading and spelling, throwing a lot of spelling at the kid, and on top of that a song with a fast tempo, it's easy for the kid to lose track of what he or she is spelling. Even as a grown adult, I have to slow down and make sure I spell everything correctly, especially "live eternally," which is spelled all as one. I have to give I Am A C a FAIL.

DEEP AND WIDE: I actually had to do research on this song. Apparently, the idea behind this song comes from Ezekiel 47, in which Ezekiel has a vision of a river flowing from the temple in Jerusalem, which gets deeper and wider. Without this context, though, there is nothing fruitful about knowing a deep and wide fountain exists. I have to give Deep and Wide a FAIL.

I'VE GOT PEACE LIKE A RIVER: Using water metaphors before Hillsong made it cool! Just like the previous mentioned song, while I'm glad the singer has peace like a river, joy like a fountain, and love like an ocean, without greater context, this really doesn't qualify as a Christian song. There is no hint in the song that the peace like a river, joy like a fountain or love like an ocean came from Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Word, salvation, church, or anything like that. For all the singer knows, the peace like a river, joy like a fountain or love like an ocean came from another religion, or not even a religion at all. Anyone worshiping any god of any religion could see this song truly, and even the atheist could sing this song in truth. Some have attempted to connect this song to Isaiah 48:18, but most of my sources concluded that the song's origin is unknown, outside the fact it's an African-American spiritual song. Even if did it come from Isaiah 48:18, it would be an odd choice. The line in Isaiah 48:18 says, "If only you would have paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of a sea" (NIV 1984 ed.). The "if" clause implies that Israel has not paid attention to the Lord God's commands, so they never go tot experience the peace like a river. Therefore, by singing "I've got peace like a river" in the context of Isaiah 48:18, the singer is pretty much singing "I got to experience what Israel did not because I'm doing better off than Israel!" Pretty bold words. Besides, if the phrase "peace like a river" did come from Isaiah 48:18, it only explains the first verse, and it does not explain the origin of the second or third verse. If the first verse did come from Isaiah 48:18, then the third verse should say "I've got righteousness like the ocean," not love, or at least have a fourth verse that says, "I've got righteousness like sea," although I'm not sure such lyrics would align with the music. All in all, that's a lot to say I've Got Peace Like a River gets a FAIL.

I'VE GOT THE JOY JOY JOY JOY: No, just no. It promotes a Christian version of hedonism too much. It doesn't allow a church-going Christian, who has gone or is currently going through a time of trials and pains, to rest in the comfort that the Sovereign Lord remains in control, but rather, it forces that Christian to feel emotions that he or she cannot feel or doesn't want to feel. Yes, the second verse speaks on "the peace that passes all understanding," and the third verse talks about, "the wonderful love of our blessed Redeemer," but most of the time, when I hear this song, it never goes beyond the first verse. Even if/when it doesn't chorus repeats the idea of happiness in the words, "And I'm so happy, so very happy..." Again, too many of my Christian millennial peers already grade Christianity based off how happy it makes them, and I can't help but wonder that some of that thinking might find its roots in the song. Yes, I know the Bible talks about the joy of the Lord, but maybe we should hold that theology off until they are grown adults, who can weigh out the joy of the Lord with the cost of discipleship. In conclusion, I've Got the Joy Joy Joy Joy gets a FAIL.

THIS LITTLE LIGHT OF MINE: To me, this song is reminiscent of Matthew 5:14&15/Mark 4:21/Luke 8:16, in the sense that these verses talk about not hiding a lamp light, and the second verse of the song says, "Hide it under a bushel? No! I'm going to let it shine."  From that, it's easy to extend the light shining to not letting Satan blow it out to shining it over until Jesus comes. This song gets a PASS.

MY GOD IS SO BIG: Again, this song is so simple, yet it works. It establishes doctrine, like 1) God is omnipotent (all-powerful), 2) God created the whole world, and 3) God is in control of the world. My God is So Big gets a PASS.

FATHER ABRAHAM: Technically, Abraham only fathered 8 children, and only 1 of those were the son of the promise, whom Sarah bore. Yes, Paul does teach twice in Galatians 3 that those in the faith are sons of Abraham (3:7) and those in Christ are Abraham's offspring (3:29), but this teaching needs careful interpretation. Paul says these things to compare the Christian faith to the faith of Abraham. Just as Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6) apart from having the Law, so the Christian comes to faith in Jesus Christ, not the Law. Such a concept might be too grand for a child to grasp it, and even if the child can understand it, this song does not do a good job of explaining it. Besides, children think more literally than figuratively, so they will think this song teaches that they are related to Abraham of the Bible like they are related to grandparents. Father Abraham gets a FAIL.

12 MEN WENT TO SPY ON CANAAN: Of all the Bible stories to teach children in song, it seems weird to pull out a random story in Numbers (a book that most Christians don't visit regularly anyways), in which Moses chooses 12 men, 1 from each tribe, to spy out the Promise Land, of which 10 come back with a bad report and 2 come back with a good report. Thankfully, the song skips over the part when the 10 bad spies die of plague and the rest of Israel doesn't get to enter the Promise Land. Despite the random choice of Bible stories, the song still ends on the strong note that some spies "saw that God was in it all," which in turn teaches the children see God in all their lives, whether going through the good parts or the bad parts of life. Therefore, 12 Men Went to Spy on Canaan gets a PASS.

HALLELUJAH/PRAISE YE THE LORD: Pretty cool that this song actually teaches children Hebrew. Indeed, the Hebrew word הַלְלוְּיהּ (hallelujah) is a compound word that literally translates into "Praise Yahweh" or "Praise (Ye) the Lord." Furthermore, the Hebrew word appears 46 times in 23 verses of the Psalms, making it very Biblical. Hallelujah/Praise Ye The Lord definitely gets a PASS.

THIS IS THE DAY: This song is literally Psalm 118:24 put to music. Can't criticize a song that literally uses Scripture without criticizing the Scripture itself. If one would grasp at straws to complain, the complaint would be along the lines that we don't if this musical piece is how the original Psalm was sung, but that's really grasping at straws. This is the Day definitely gets a PASS.

FISHERS OF MEN: This song is pretty much Matthew 4:19/Mark 1:17 put to music, except that the song takes the phrase "Follow me" and puts it at the end of the verse, adding the word "if" to make it conditional clause. The changes the song makes really don't change the meaning of the verse. Even adding the word "if" to the phrase "follow me" to turn the clause conditional does really affect anything. Clearly, Simon and Andrew had follow Jesus to become fishers of men. Simon and Andrew couldn't follow Jesus without becoming fishers of men, and Simon and Andrew couldn't become fishers of me without following Jesus. And thank goodness that the music does not allow anybody to change "fishers of men" to "fishers of people" like the NIV 2011 edition did! Fishers of Men gets a PASS.

THE WISE MAN BUILT HIS HOUSE UPON THE ROCK: This song pretty much paraphrases Matthew 7:24-27/Luke 6:47-49, and it pretty much does so faithfully. The first verse speaks of the wise man building his rock upon the rock, and the house stands firm. The second verse talks about a foolish man building his house upon the sand, and the house collapses. Together, these 2 verses accurately retell the parable of Jesus. Recently, however, it has come to my attention that this song has a third verse. The first half of the third verse say, "So build your house on the Lord Jesus Christ." I didn't think the song needed to explicitly declare the meaning of the parable (even so, Jesus teaches the meaning of the parable is to reflect the difference between those who put Jesus's words into practice and those who do not, not that Jesus is the firm foundation), yet here in the third verse the song does so. The second half of the song states, "The blessings go down as the prayers go up." At best, this is a misunderstanding of the parable. The blessings come as a result of obeying the instruction of Jesus, not by (merely) praying. At worst, this is the prosperity gospel, for it communicates to the children that they will receive blessing as long as they ask for it in prayer. Based on Bible Quizzing's two-thirds rule, The Wise Man Built His House Upon the Rock get a PASS, on the condition that nobody sings the third verse.

ZACCHAEUS WAS A WEE LITTLE MAN: The story of Zacchaeus takes up the first 10 verses of Luke 19. The song, however, stops short after the first 5 verses of Luke 19. The song seems fixated on his small height. Even the fact that Zacchaeus climbs the sycamore tree is to get up high to see Jesus, once again due to his short height. According to the song, the climax is that Jesus went to Zacchaeus's house. I would disagree, however, arguing that the climax is that Zacchaeus receives salvation, evident by his willingness to donate half his wealth to the poor and repay anyone he has wronged fourfold. Zacchaeus was a Wee Little Man only covers half the pericope, and half falls short of Bible Quizzing's two-thirds rule, so I have to give Zacchaeus was a Wee Little Man a FAIL.

REJOICE IN THE LORD ALWAYS: Again, this song is literally Philippians 4:4 put to music. To argue with this song is to argue with the Bible. Rejoice in the Lord Always gets a PASS.

BELOVED, LET US LOVE ONE ANOTHER: Once again, this song is literally 1 John 4:7&8 to music. To criticize this song is to criticize the Bible. Beloved, Let Us Love One Another gets a PASS. (For this song, the last song, and This is the Day, they should all be glad that I am grading them on theological accuracy, not creativity.)

HE'S GOT THE WHOLE WORLD IN HIS HANDS: I've heard many iterations of this song, and all iterations come back to the fact that God has the whole world, from the weather to the people, in his hands, i.e. in his control. He's Got the Whole World in his Hands gets a PASS.

I'M IN THE LORD'S ARMY: Ironically, I first learned this song in the Mennonite Church! The music leader, however, was very careful to stress that being a part of the Lord's army means that we will never march in an infantry, ride the cavalry, shoot the artillery or fly over the enemy, as the song's lyrics say (i.e. joining the country's military is a sin). Even more ironically, when this music leader taught us pupils motions to the song, the line "shoot the artillery" had the motions of pretending to shoot guns! To continue to add to the irony, I find it funny that Christians from church of other denominations will teach their children this song, yet still have a very pro-military stance, especially viewing those young men and women in their congregation who do join the military. The Mennonite in me wants the word "may" in the phrase "I may never..." to the word "will" to make the phrase "I will never..." Even pushing my Mennonite bias aside, this song teaches what the Lord's army isn't, but it does not teach what the Lord's army is. Thus, I'm in the Lord's Army gets a FAIL.

I AM THE CHURCH: If any song on this list deserves a "very pass," it would be this song. This song attempts to rectify mistaking the church as a building, especially one with a steeple, when in reality, the church is the people gathering together to worship Jesus. I haven't heard this song recently, and perhaps this song needs more air time, especially considering how many of these megachurches continue to add comforting amenities to their building. I am the Church gets a PASS.

Final Score: PASS - 14, FAIL - 7

In all honesty, even the songs that failed I will probably still sing to my daughter.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Don't Bring God Cows

According to the liturgical calendar, today is the 3rd Sunday of Easter. Yes, there is more than 1 Sunday of Easter. As I have said in the past, while we should be living out the truth of the resurrection every Sunday (after all, Christians moved the Sabbath to Sunday because of the resurrection), Easter can be a time to reflect on how much we actually do live out the resurrection, and if we're not, a time to get us back on track. Clearly, doing so will take more than 1 Sunday or 1 week, so Easter needs to extend beyond 1 Sunday. This 3rd Sunday of Easter, let's take some more time to reflect on what the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did for us. Today, we're going to look in the most unusual place - the life of King Saul, as found in 1 Samuel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (ESV)-

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. 18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Before heading into 1 Samuel, I'd like to take a quick pit stop in Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 17. The first question that arises when examining King Saul is, "Did Yahweh really want Saul to become king?" Before asking that question, however, a better question to ask would be, "Did the Lord want Israel to have a king in the first place?" Well, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has laws for a king, but your interpretation on why those laws exist all depends on whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian, whether you fall more on the side of predestination or free will. If you're Calvinist or believe in predestination, you believe God did predestine Israel to have kings, best proved by the fact that Yahweh established laws for a king centuries before a king takes the throne. The point of the Judges was to prove why Israel could not establish a theocratic government in which the Lord directly ruled over the people. Simply put, according to the Calvinists, the book of Judges proves why Israel can't have nice things. If you are Arminian or believe in free will, you believe God did want to rule directly over his people in a theocratic government, like in the book of Judges, but he foresaw the people of Israel asking for a king. Therefore, Yahweh got ahead of the people by establishing laws for a king, so he could grant their request in a way that was mutually beneficial to both sides. Simply put, according to the Arminian, it is as if the Lord is saying, "I don't like kings, but I will allow kings, as long as I can put up safeguards." Either way, these laws in Deuteronomy 17 prove that God did not disprove of Saul merely because he was a king. If you were to ask me which side of the debate I fall on, however, I would probably say the Arminian or free will side, for I think the life of Saul would support that side of the argument.

So did Yahweh really want Saul to become a king, especially when David is a man's after God's own heart, whereas Saul had no heart for God? After all, if you do the math, David would have been 18 years old when Samuel anointed Saul king of Israel. Surely the Lord could have Samuel anoint David instead of Saul. The best answer to that question is, again, simply put, to prove to Israel why it can't have nice things. Yahweh picks the first king according to Israel's standards. The fact that 1 Samuel 10:23 mentions that Saul was a head above the average Israelite meant that Saul looked the part of a king - he was tall, dark and handsome. The Lord picks the second king in accordance to his standards. David might be ruddy, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:12, but this ruddy boy becomes the man after God's own heart. Yahweh has to remind even his own prophet Samuel to look beyond the boy David's looks to see the heart of a king, as found in 1 Samuel 16:7. Therefore, I would not say God predestined Saul to fail as king, but rather, God foresaw Saul would fail, so he made it an opportune time to teach the people of Israel a lesson.

Indeed, I do believe Yahweh gave Saul a fair chance to serve both Yahweh and Israel as king, as evident in the book of 1 Samuel. To borrow baseball terms, reading through 1 Samuel, it becomes apparent that the Lord gave Saul 3 strikes before he was out, and each strike came with discipline or a punishment. The first strike resulted in loss of a dynasty, as evident in 1 Samuel 13:8-15. The second strike resulted in loss of kingship, as can be read in 1 Samuel 15. The third strike results in loss of life, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28. Of those 3 passages, I imagine most people are most familiar with 1 Samuel 28, as that chapter is the famous (infamous?) Witch of Endor passage, in which Saul consults a medium. The other 2 passages are less familiar, but they are both important passages for Saul's life, for upon closer examining, they reveal the same truth about Saul. Without further ado, take a closer look at Saul in 1 Samuel 13:8-15 and 1 Samuel 15.

1 Samuel 13:8-15 (ESV)-

8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 15 And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal. The rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the army; they went up from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin

1 Samuel 15 (ESV)-

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ” 4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the Lord. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.


In both passages, Saul has received commands from Yahweh, in written in the Law or spoken by the prophet Samuel. In both passages, Saul instead does what is right in his own eyes, and he attempts to justify it. It is as if Saul is saying, "No, God really wants this" or "No, I got something better for God that he'll enjoy more." It's like Saul thinks he know God better than God knows God! In both passages, instead of Saul truly confessing and repenting of his sin, Saul opts for doing penance. In other words, whereas Saul should have said sorry, learned his lesson and stopped his disobedience to the Lord, Saul instead tries to do something good in its place, hoping that the Lord will forget about the sin or no longer care about the sin. In both passages, God punishes Saul's kingship, in hope that the discipline would make Saul learn a lesson, but Saul does not learn his lesson. The message should have been clear to Saul: You can't pay off the Lord!

While the message was not clear to Saul, the message became very clear to David, Israel's next king. David saw the mistakes his predecessor made, and he must have vowed that he would not repeat those mistakes. That's why Saul was the man who had no heart for God, and David became the man after God's own heart. One of those ways was the handling of sin. David was by no means perfect. He too sinned. Where David improved from Saul, however, is he knew what do when he sinned. Whereas Saul would attempt to justify his sin or try to do penance for his sin, David knew what the Lord really wanted him to do when he sinned: confess and repent. Just read about it in Psalm 51:16&17.

Psalm 51:16&17 (ESV)-

16  For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:16&17 is a psalm David wrote after he commited adultery against Bathsheba, murdered Uriah and was confronted by Nathan. David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up with Uriah, and then murdered Uriah when the cover up did not work. If Saul would have committed the same sin, Saul probably would have justified as his right as king, or he would have made sacrifices, hoping the sacrifices would make everything go away. Again, David realizes the mistakes Saul made and decides not to make the same mistakes. Instead of justifying it, or making a sacrifice or a burnt offering, he merely confesses and repents. that's why David ends up the man after God's own heart, despite the sins he committed against Bathsheba and Uriah. David's attitude is again reflected in the previous psalm, Psalm 50. Now Psalm 50 is written by Asaph. While not everybody agree with this, I believe Asaph was David's worship leader for the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Therefore, I imagine David and Asaph shared ideas, such as David learning from Saul's mistakes and not making the same mistakes. The lesson David learned from Saul to not make sacrifices or do penance for sins must have stuck with Asaph, for he has a similar reflection.

Psalm 50:7-11 (ESV)-

7  “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8  Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9  I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10  For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Asaph understood why you can't pay off the Lord - because the Lord already owns everything! Since Yahweh created everything, he is the owner of everything in the world, including all the wealth of the world. There is nothing that a human being can give God that God does not have because he made it all. Psalm 50:7-11 not only teaches why it is impossible to pay off the Lord, but it also reminds the reader the reason the sacrificial exists in the first place. Sacrifices were never meant as a penance to sin. The point of offerings were to recognize that there has been a loss on the victim's side (even if that loss is a loss of relationship trust, which would be the case for sins against God), which has brought about pain. Thus, the sinner, by performing the sacrifice, was personally and voluntarily taking on a loss himself or herself, which would bring pain upon sinner. Not only would this voluntarily sacrifice allow the sinner to emphathize with the victim, the pain of loss on the sinner's part would deter the sinner from ever committing the sin again. In short, the point of offerings was to provide a way to show how you were sorry or to show how sorry you were, not to be a way do penance or make up for your sin. Therefore, by doing sacrifices or giving an offering, you are not paying off the Lord, but rather, you are disciplining yourself before God to demonstrate your repentance.

Not only does David reflect on how his predecessor Saul made the mistake of attempting to pay off the Lord, the prophets, both major prophets and minor prophets, make the same reflection in the hopes of communicating to the respective audiences how much Yahweh wants them to stop sinning instead of giving offerings and sacrifices alongside sinning. To start, check out the words of the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah 1:11-17 (ESV)-

11  “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12  “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13  Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15  When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16  Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Jeremiah 7:22-24 (ESV)-

22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

This Jeremiah passage I have to pause to comment on briefly because I myself did not believe. Yes, I fact checked the Lord by briefly skimming over Exodus, and indeed, in the book of Exodus, God does not command anything concerning burnt offering and sacrifices. Yes, in Exodus 10:25, Moses casually mentions to Pharaoh that the people of Israel need their livestock for sacrifices and burnt offering, but this line is more of Moses informing Pharaoh of the purpose of going out into the desert to worship, and it is less of Yahweh commanding the the people of Israel how to perform the sacrifices and burnt offerings. True, Exodus 20:22-26 provides laws on how to build altar, which verse 24 states has the purpose of sacrificing, but in the passage, the Lord never goes into detail how the Israelites are to perform these sacrifices and offerings. God holds that all off until the book of Leviticus. In the book of Exodus, all the laws and instructions center around loving God and loving your neighbor, not performing sacrifices and offerings. Clearly, God holds in preference obedience over sacrifices, as the minor prophets will continue to demonstrate.

Hosea 6:6 (ESV)

6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Amos 5:21-24 (ESV)-

21  “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. 23  Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Micah 6:6-8 (ESV)-

6  “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8  He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the words of the major prophets and minor prophets sound very similar to what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul. I would argue that the major prophets and the minor prophets here are purposely alluding to or echoing the former prophet Samuel. When the major and minor prophets prophesied these words, they are thinking about what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul, and they realized that the people of Israel and Judah are acting no different than their king from antiquity. It is as if the major and minor prophets are prophesying to the people of Israel and Judah, "You should have learned from your former king of old that you can't pay off the Lord!" More specifically to Isaiah, Amos and Micah, notice how these prophets substitute Samuel's words of obeying with justice. On the surface level, I believe that this is God, in his grace and mercy, revealing to Israel and Judah their specific sin, so they know what exactly sin from which they need to confess and repent. It is like Yahweh is crying out the people of Israel and Judah, "I don't need sacrifices and offerings because of your sin of injustice; I just need you to stop the injustice and start the justice!" On a more deeper level, however, the prophecies of Isaiah, Amos and Micah teach why you can't pay off the Lord - a God that can be paid off is an unjust God, for a God that can be paid off favors the rich and shows partiality against the poor. Think about it. If somebody can pay off God and is rich, that somebody can afford to sin. It doesn't matter if the rich person has a wild and crazy night of sinning, as long as he or she makes the correct offerings or sacrifices the next morning, that person is fine, and that person can continue the pattern for all his or her life and end up in heaven. If someone can pay off the Lord, but that someone is poor, he or she doesn't dare to sin because he or she cannot afford to sin. If that poor person does sin, that person will be in debt all his or her life, become even poorer and still worry about going to hell because he or she could not afford to give God the payment for sin. This isn't fair; this isn't just. Nobody should be able to afford to sin; no one should fear to sin because they don't have wealth. Everybody should have access to way to repent from sin and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, despite money, assets or other wealth. That is the just God we worship, not an unjust God that can be paid off. We need to worship God in a way that reflects that. Any attempts to pay off God does not reflect that.

So far, all the Bible passages covered have all come from the Old Testament, so the question that then arises is if the 1st century church of the New Testament ever struggled with this sin of attempting to pay off God. As far as my recollection of the New Testament stands, I cannot think of such of an example. Some may bring up Simon the Magician/Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24, but he's trying to pay John and Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of sin. Others might bring up Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, in Acts 5:1-11, but their sin is lying about the amount of money offered to the church, not paying off the church for sin. No, the 1st century church does not seem to struggle with this sin, or even is tempted with the sin. This does not mean, however, the church has been immune from this sin. Going through church history will reveal that the church has struggled with this sin.

In the 900s AD, the church began the practice of indulgences, which is a monetary payment paid to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Some church historians have argued this practice of indulgences began in the 600s AD, but at best, this practice of indulgences indirectly exchanged money for the forgiveness of sins. For example, a person could donate a large sum of money to a charity, and the church would recognize this donation to charity as an act of penance. As another example, a person would go to confessional to confess their sins, the priest would tell them, "You need to pray 50 unique prayers as your act of penance," and it would just so happen that the church is selling a book of prayers. Again, this person would be paying for a book of prayers, not paying the church specifically for the forgiveness of sins. No, it's not until the 900s AD that the church would allow a donation of money directly to the church as an act of penance, but even then, indulgences was just 1 of many ways a person could do penance. It's not until the 1500s that the practice of indulgences became a sin the church struggled with, thanks to Pope Leo X. See, Leo X was born into nobility, so he's next in line to become a king of a kingdom, but he gets stuck with the assignment of pope. That wasn't going to stop Leo X from living like a king. He would not only redecorate the Vatican and the papal palace with the best artwork of the day, he would constantly host parties with kings and other nobility to prove he was one of them. Naturally, doing so racked up a big bill, one that dried up the Vatican's funds, which is hard to do, but Leo X did it. Leo X found the solution to the lack of money problem in pushing the sales of indulgences, so much so that many friars and monks pretty much became indulgences salesmen. Things were going smoothly until Martin Luther appeared on the scene. The sales of indulgences became one of the top targets of his 95 Theses. It's worth looking at some of the theses that do target indulgences, for they drive home the point of all the verses examined in 1 Samuel, the Psalms and the prophetic books. Before doing so, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Most Christians today know that putting money in the church offering plate does not forgive sins or bring about salvation. Even the Roman Catholic Church understands this, as they abolished the sales of indulges in the 1970s! Many Christians, however, still sometimes think that God will forgive their sin, or at least forget their sin or ignore their sin if they do some good work or practice some spiritual discipline. With that in mind, I encourage you, as you're reading these theses, replace the word indulgences with a good work or a spiritual discipline that you or some Christian might think they can do as penance for the forgiveness of a sin or to bring about salvation from sin. Without further ado, take a look at these theses from Martin Luther against indulgences.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

The 613 Laws can be summarized in the greatest and second greatest commandment, the greatest being to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and the second being to love your neighbor as yourself. As Samuel said to Saul, the Lord will always desire obedience to the Law over any offering or any sacrifice. Put it together, and God will always want you to love him and to love others over any offering ans sacrifice. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual discipline will ever become more important than loving the Lord God and loving your neighbor.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

Again, reflect back on the words of Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Lord revealed through these prophets that people of Israel and Judah angered him by thinking they continue acting merciless and unjustly towards other people, especially the poor, if they continued the offerings and sacrifices. Instead, God would have been more satisfied if they turned around from merciless to merciful and from injustice to justice. Again, the Lord God will always prefer bringing justice to injustice over any offering, any sacrifice, or any spiritual discipline. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual will ever become more important than justice and mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observed people passing poor beggars on their way to pay large sums of money for indulgences. This fact carries a sense of irony, for this practice of receiving indulgences for giving money began as a practice of giving alms to charities, not the church! Those poor beggars needing the money more than the pope, for the poor beggars needed the money to survive, whereas the pope needed the money to continue living in luxury. Once again, this fact calls back to the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. The poor and needy should not live in poverty, so the church can become rich. If so, then the church becomes guilty of the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. If the church has its bank book balanced, and as long as the church does not spend its money wastefully, any offering to the poor will mean more to the Lord God than tithing to a church. If this fact offends the chuch, and the church still insists tithing has more importance than offerings to the poor and needy (and the charities that focuses on the poor and needy), then the church should dedicate a percentage of their tithes to the poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

While the Lord does command tithing and offerings, tithing and offerings do not make anybody a good person. Anyone can give tithes and offering, yet that person can still live in sin. A person becomes less like the old, sinful self and more like new, Christ-like self by loving the Lord God will all his or her heart, soul, mind and strength, loving his or her neighbor like the self. That's the sanctification the Lord God requires of every Christian, not giving money. (For the record, I think the phrase "is merely freed from penalties" is Martin Luther attempting to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church)

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

Since the first half of this thesis already has the same meaning has thesis number 43, the second half of this thesis will take on the main focus here. If anything, thesis 43 and 45 are two sides of the same coin. Thesis 43 puts it in a positive light. Those who give offerings to the poor and needy instead of buying indulgences please the Lord and make the Lord happy. Thesis 45 puts it in a negative light. Those who buy indulgences instead of giving that money to the poor and needy displease God and make God mad. If anybody thinks that good works or spiritual disciplines make the Lord happy enough to avoid the sin, quite the opposite is true. The wrath of God burns against anyone who use good works or spiritual disciples to cover up sin. Again, Martin Luther points out the irony that those people buying indulgences thought they just bought the Lord's pleasure instead bought God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observe financially-stable families bring themselves to poverty buying indulgences, not just for themselves but also for their dead relatives (another way Pope Leo X expanded indulgences to get more income to the church)! The Lord had a reason for commanding the Old Testament Israelites to tithe ten percent, and not just because Abraham did so to Melchizedek. Whether rich or poor, anybody giving ten percent will always have ninety percent left to take care of the family. Giving tithes and offerings should never bankrupt a family, as the indulgences that Pope Leo X promoted and Martin Luther rejected did.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

Tithing is mandatory; offerings are optional. Thanks to the New Covenant, the New Testament teaches that there is no tithing; there is only offering. In accordance with 2 Corinthians 8-9, Jesus only commands believers to give generously and give joyfully. Such a command does not excuse Christians from giving if they give neither generously nor joyfully, but rather, the command encourages Christians to develop a heart that desires to giving generously and joyfully. If you want to give money because you feel thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for your sins, that's amazing! If you want to give because you want your heart to match Christ's heart, and you want to work with the Holy Spirit to make yourself less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christ-like self, that's awesome! If you want to give money because you want to participate alongside the church in a worth cause that needs financial backing, that's excellent! If want to give money because your heart breaks for those suffering in their poverty, that's fantastic! No one, however, should give because they feel like their Savior demands it from them. As witnessed in Psalm 50, the Messiah already owns all the wealth of the world. He does not need yours.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

For the Roman Catholic reader out there, keep this statement as pope. For the Protestant Christian reader, change pope to pastor. A good pope or a good pastor knows more power exists in prayer rather than in money, and therefore, a good pope or pastor asks for prayer more than money. On the flip side, a bad pope or pastor asks for money more than asking for prayer. Thus, Pope Leo X was a bad pope. If you have a pastor who always seems concerned about the income of church, aside from numbers in the red (unless the church spends excessively), then you have a toxic pastor, and you don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

Any good work or any spiritual discipline should bring the Christian closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not further away from him. The difference may lie in whether the Christian believes that the good work or the spiritual discipline determines whether the Christian has salvation and gets to go to heaven. If the Christian put his or her trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, all good works and spiritual disciplines, including the giving of offerings, can be beneficial for spiritual growth. If the Christian thinks that good works and spiritual disciplines, including giving offerings, bring about salvation and eternal life, not a relationship with the Lord Jesus, then that Christian has taken a step back in the faith.

The list could go on and on, as Martin Luther mentions indulgences in 45 of his 95 theses, yet for the sake of time, the list stops here. While worth reading all 95 theses, especially the 45 that cover indulgences, these 9 theses testify to the same points the Scriptures mentioned. You can't pay off the Lord! God will always desire obedience, especially obedience in terms of justice, over any offering or sacrifice.

To conclude the way I introduced this topic, as we reflect back on Easter and the resurrection, I want everybody know that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid your debt of sin in full. There's is nothing more that you need to do. You don't need to pay off the Lord for your sin because Jesus already paid his Father with his life. Again, I repeat, Jesus paid it all. With that in mind, if you are a Christian, who believes Jesus paid it all, stop trying to pay off the Lord with your good works. If you're doing good works as a sign of thankfulness for the salvation Jesus has given you, that's amazing! If you're doing good works because you're working with the Holy Spirit to create that clean heart that's less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christlike self, that's awesome! If you do good works because you want to see the kingdom of God on earth, that's excellent! If you do good works because your heart breaks for those suffering in their sin, that's fantastic! If you're doing good works, however, hoping the Lord will ignore the sin in your life or to justify the sin in your life, you are attempting to pay off the Lord. Once again, you cannot pay off the Lord! If that's the case, stop doing good works and start confessing and repenting.

Easter has another importance. Easter marks the end of Lent. Many Christians choose to fast for Lent. This teaching should get you reflecting on why you fast during Lent. If you fasted from something during Lent because you realize you've made that something a higher priority in life than the Lord, and you chose to fast from it to put the Lord back in the number 1 spot in your life, you've done your Lent fast correctly. If you fasted from something during Lent because you were going to that thing for something when you really should have been going to God, and you fasted from it to put your dependency back in God, then you did your Lent fast right. If you fasted from something during Lent because you think it impressive God, then you did your Lent fast wrong. What "impresses" the Lord is a repentant heart, not spiritual disciplines.

In closing, for those disappointed that I did not use a New Testament verse, let me throw in 1 New Testament verse-

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)-

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In the few couple theses of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Martin Luther cited Matthew 4:17 as the start of the downfall of the church. No, it has nothing to do with what Jesus said, it has everything to do with St. Jerome said. Jerome is the man who translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. When Jerome got to Matthew 4:17, he took Jesus's first word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which most English translations accurately translate as "repent," and Jerome translated it as poenitentia, or "do penance." This mistranslation got the ball rolling into a Roman Catholic church that accepted indulgences for a payment of sin, which Martin Luther saw deserving criticism. Still, the truth remains that the kingdom of heaven is not seen at hand when we give offerings, do good works or practice spiritual disciplines. No, the kingdom of heaven is seen at hand when people repent of their sin.

Friday, October 06, 2023

Your Will Be Done - What Did I Just Agree To?

I spent the first ten years of my life growing up in a traditional church. Traditional churches have a reputation for following strictly to a liturgy, so strictly that some liturgy almost has a requirement to appear in every single Sunday worship service. One piece of liturgy recited every Sunday contains reciting the Lord’s prayer. Naturally, I learned to memorize the Lord’s prayer, and quite imaginably, anybody who grew in a traditional church (and maybe even some contemporary and charismatic churches) also memorized the Lord’s prayer in the same rote repetition. Sometimes the danger of the rote repetition could result in somebody reciting the Lord’s prayer without really considering the words spoken or their meaning. If carefully considering the meaning of the words, phrases and sentences, someone might hesitate halfway through, where the prayer says, “your will be done.” What exactly is the believer agreeing to when praying “your will be done”? What are the exact terms and conditions the Christian signs off on when praying “your will be done”? Both of those questions deserve further exploring.

Without further ado, I invite you to turn to Matthew 6:9-13, commonly known as the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s prayer does also appear in Luke 11:2-4, but interesting enough, it does omit a few lines, one of which includes “Your will be done.” Now no one should confuse this omission as Luke rejecting the line, as if he didn’t like it or downright hated it, for Luke does record the line (or something similar) elsewhere. For example, when Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane in Luke 22, Jesus closes the prayer in Luke 22:42 with the line “Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” As another example, in Acts 21:14, when the Christians of Caesarea try to convince Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but Paul will not be persuaded by their attempts, they conclude, “Let the will of the Lord be done.” Clearly, Luke has no objection to the line, so why did he omit it? One of the prominent theories suggest that Luke saw the line “your will be done” as redundant repetition of the prior line “your kingdom come.” According to Luke, if God’s kingdom comes, then God’s will is done, and if the Lord’s will is done, then the Lord’s kingdom has come. Matthew, as a Jew writing to Jews, knew that the Old Testament poetry had something called synonymous parallelisms, in which two lines say the exact same thing/idea with similar yet different words in order to emphasis the idea. What Luke saw as redundancy and repetition Matthew saw as emphasis. Therefore, a proper understanding of “your will be done” first requires the proper interpretation of “your kingdom come.”

Throughout the Old Testament, everybody from prophets to priests to poets, yearned for the Messiah to establish his messianic kingdom (1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalms 96:13, 98:9; Isaiah 13:6, 24:23, 26:21, 32:22, 52:7; Joel 2:1; Micah 1:3; Zephaniah 3:15; Zechariah 14:1&9; Malachi 4:5). By praying “your kingdom come,” and likewise, “your will be done,” in the Lord’s prayer, the person praying shares in the same zeal for the Christ to set up his kingdom. This idea of the Messiah establishing his messianic kingdom finds its basis in the Lord’s covenant promises to his covenant people. Praying God’s kingdom come, and similarly, the Lord’s will be done, means to pray that the Lord will fulfill all his covenant promises. Covenant promises he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; covenant promises he made to Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai; and covenant promises he made to David.

Praying “your kingdom come” sounds like an odd request in the greater context of Matthew. Earlier in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17, Jesus announces that the kingdom of God is at hand. Later in Matthew 12:28, Jesus declares that him casting out demons proves that the kingdom of God has come. The problem, however, is that not everybody acknowledges and recognizes it. Jesus will later on illustrate this with a series of parables in Matthew 13, most notably the parable of the mustard seed and yeast, which emphasis the explosive expansion of the kingdom of God in the future. Scholars call this tension the “already-not yet” duality. Therefore, the kingdom in mind in Matthew 6:10 would be the eschatological kingdom, or the kingdom of God established in the new heaven and new earth. As foretold by the prophets, this is when the Lord’s plan for future history comes to full completion. Thus, the prayer asks that this fully realized kingdom comes sooner than later. The goal of the prayer is the future of kingdom of God may be just as real as the present kingdom of God. Just like praying “Hallowed by your name,” the person praying does not ask for the petition to become true, for the statement is already true. Instead, the praying person requests for that future kingdom, which everyone does acknowledges and recognizes. If any direct application arises from this line, the line prays that the disciples of Jesus will faithfully and obedient spread the kingdom of God by living out what Jesus taught, including everything from what they say to what they do.

Therefore, it makes sense to think of praying “your will be done” under the same exact “already-not yet” dichotomy. True disciples of Jesus, who call Jesus their Lord and Savior, already participate in the will of the Lord, but praying “your will be done” asks that everybody will contribute to the will of God across the world. Still, the question remains on what it means to pray “your will be done.”

So what does it mean to pray “Your will be done?”

Praying “your will be done” means the person praying asking God’s plan of salvation to come to full fruition. In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul writes to Timothy that God” desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Whether your Calvinist and believe this verse only applies to the elect, or if your Arminian and believe that all people means every single person, the truth remains that when people come to the saving knowledge and truth of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of God expands in membership. It only makes sense that the more souls saved, the more souls will contribute to the will of God.

Praying “Your will be done” includes praying the Lord will overthrow the sin that the earth has become enslaved to and returning the world into the very good and sinless creation God originally made. God’s will being done means that he is truly the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, with no other emperor, king, prince or governor competing with him for reign over the earth.

Praying “Your will be done” means for the removal of the sinful. It’s not something we like to think of, but Jesus has promised paradise to his disciples, and it won’t be paradise if evil and wickedness allows for pain and suffering to continue to haunt his followers.

Praying “Your will be done” means, as a disciple of Jesus, learning to submit in humility to the will of God. Throughout the book of Matthew, Jesus correlates the doing the will of the Lord as a marker of a true disciple. According to Matthew 7:21, those who do God’s will are the only ones who call rightfully call God their Lord, or master. In Matthew 12:50, Jesus calls those who do the Father’s Will his brothers, his sisters and mothers. The point of the parable in Matthew 21 is that the true disciple does the Lord’s will. As always, Jesus makes himself the perfect model of a human follower of Jesus by praying he can submit to the will of God, as seen in Matthew 26:42. Therefore, praying “your will be done” becomes an activity of humility and submission. Prayer now becomes a spiritual discipline of aligning the person’s will with the Lord’s will. The believer does not need to pray anything about or for himself or herself, the Christian knows that God has already taken care of sustaining and blessing him or her.

On that note, the cool thing is that the disciples of Jesus testify to already here part of the kingdom of God. While Christians cannot single-handedly usher in the kingdom of God by their own merit, in both preaching the gospel message and living out the kingdom, they proclaim that the kingdom of God is indeed at hand and within grasp. When disciples both preach the gospel and live out the kingdom, it makes the kingdom of God very real here and now. Therefore, when Christians pray “your will be done,” they ask the Father for the strength to be obedient to the calling that they have received. Again, this does not mean that the church will bring out new heaven and new earth themselves, but by living it out here and now, the church testifies to the certainty that Jesus will return and establish his kingdom.

Before diving deep into the last line in Matthew 6:10, a few questions need answering First, does “heaven” refer to God’s throne room, the paradise prepared for his disciples, outer space or the sky, or any place that recognizes Jesus as Savior and Lord? The second question to tackle is whether that last line is “on earth as it is in heaven” or “both in heaven and on earth,” for the Greek could technically translate into both. Third and last, how much of the previous parts of the prayer apply to the last line of Matthew 6:10: just “your will be done,” or “your kingdom come” with it or even the whole prayer up to this point! Theologically speaking, while rebellion can happen in heaven (see Ephesians 6:11&12 and Colossians 1:20), Matthew never depicts heaven containing the slightest bit of opposition to God. Heaven is the Lord’s throne, and from his throne, God rules heaven by his will. The future end goal is, however, that all of creation, both heaven and earth will unite fulfilling the will of God. Everybody and everything will do the will of God. In way, this closing line in Matthew 6:9 paints of picture of this inability to tell the difference between heaven and earth because everyone and everything talks and acts the same way. To conclude, the one praying should pray, “As in heaven, so on earth.”

The last line in Matthew 6:10 further emphasizes this “already-not yet” tension. The angels in heaven already worship Jesus as king, and they already do his will. The goal is to get humanity on earth to act the same way as the angels. The angels in heaven and the humans on earth should share the same priorities and values. Just as the angels in heaven fully, willingly, consistently and joyfully serve and worship Jesus, so should humans on earth fully, willingly, consistently and joyfully worship Jesus. In heaven, all the angels’ lifestyles, practices and traditions, both of a personal and corporate level, conform to the Lord’s standards, but here on earth, they do not. By praying “your will be done,” the person praying wishes that humanity’s lifestyles, practices and traditions, both of a personal and corporate level, will mold to the God’s principles.

When a Christian prays these lines of the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:10, the Christian himself or herself commits to contributing to bringing about the kingdom of God and doing the Lord’s will. After all, throughout history, as seen in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, God has chosen his people to achieve his goals.

Therefore, looking back on all three lines in Matthew 6:10, they all pray for the same thing: that the Lord’s plan of salvation will become the end goal of history. After all, it only makes sense, for the Lord’s kingdom coming to earth and the Lord’s will being done on earth all reflect the character of God, especially his holiness, as stated in Matthew 6:9 “hallowed by your name.” Thus, in a way, whatever the meaning of “your kingdom come” or “you will be done,” the prayer expresses awe at the spectacular plan that God has for the future, A true disciples yearns for earth to become like in regard to God’s kingdom and God’s will, and it has such an excitement that the person praying just wants God to bring it now. David L. Turner puts it best, “Such requests come from one whose hunger for righteousness on earth will not be satisfied with a snack, as it were, but only with the eschatological banquet associated with the age to come (5:6; cf. 8:11).”

God the Father is already King of king and Lord of lords on both earth and heaven (Matthew 11:25), and Jesus, as God the Son, shares in that same role and title (Matthew 28:18). Jesus came to establish his kingdom and his will. Thus, the disciples practice and perform the kingdom of God in both speech and action to correctly respond in demonstrating their anticipating to the fully realized kingdom on the New Heaven and New Earth, which Jesus started while ministering on earth (Matthew 13:37–43; 24:14; 28:20)

Thus, the line “on earth as it is in heaven,” closes out the first half of the Lord’s prayer centering entirely around the Lord and the Lord’s plan. Half of the prayer dedicates itself to sharing its appreciation, awe and wonder at God and God’s plan before asking of any petition.

Therefore, it only makes sense that the rest of the prayer consists of supplications, asking God to provide what the disciples need to bring about the kingdom of God and to live out the will of God. Even so, though, these supplications do not come from a selfish heart. These prayer requestions not only withhold from asking for wealthy possessions or lifestyles of the rich and the famous, they also withhold from requesting a need met, a problem solved or vengeance for a wrongdoing. The humble Christian, who really believes and conforms to the lifestyle expressed in this prayer, realizes he or she has no right to demand any of these things, especially if contradictory to God’s kingdom coming on the Lord’s will being done. Instead, the prayer requests center around the concern for the expanse of the Lord’s kingdom and the Lord’s will. Again, the believer does not have to worry about needs or wants because they know God will take care of it, for it’s part of his kingdom and his will. Thus, the disciples do not look forward to a time when they will leave the earthly plane and escape to heaven, but instead, they look for ways to bring God’s kingdom to earth by doing his will.

One last concluding thought. I like to joke with my Christian friends of other denominations (and I caution others when "joking" about this to other people, for somebody without a sense of humor will find this highly offensive) that "Every Christian is entitled to their church denomination of choice. God has given us that liberty, and God loves us all equally and the same, no matter what church denomination we choose. But when you get to heaven, you'll find we're all Mennonite." (See how that "joke" can easily offend?) With every joke, at least half of it finds its basis in seriousness. With so many other Christian denominations, they read the Sermon on the Mount, which the Lord's Prayer is part of, and they will say of it, "That's a nice ideal to look forward to at the New Heaven and New Earth when Jesus establishes his kingdom on earth, but right here right now on earth, that's not possible in this corrupt, fallen world. In this corrupt, fallen world, we must be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves" (see Matthew 10:16). The Mennonites, however, have rejected that answer. They have chosen something different. They have chosen what other Christian denominations call impossible. The Mennonites have put so much emphasis on kingdom living that they say, "You know what? We believe we don't have waiting for Jesus to establish the New Heaven and New Earth. We believe the Holy Spirit has empowered us to live out the kingdom of God right here and right now." Since the Mennonites do live out the kingdom of God, to the best of their ability, right here and right now, they get experience a little bit of heaven, so when they actually do go to heaven, they know how to live it out, whereas the other denominations might need a little bit more time getting use to things. All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the Mennonites' emphasis on living out God's kingdom come right here and now sets up the Mennonites to live out God's will being done. Let the Mennonites be the witness to the rest of the Christian denominations on what it means to live out the Lord's will be done.

Bibliography

Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1907.

Barbieri, Louis A., Jr. “Matthew.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1 of International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.

France, Richard T. “Matthew.” Pages 904–45 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

France, Richard T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Vol. 33A of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1993.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale Reference Library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. St. Matthew. Vol. 1 of The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Turner, David L. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Weber, Stuart K. Matthew. Vol. 1 of Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

Sunday, May 14, 2023

The Mother of All Living Sermons

I would like to start with a prayer request. I’m not a fan of the unspoken prayer request, but I imagine the person involved in the prayer request would not appreciate strangers knowing about her business, so I will not name any names. Please pray for a friend from quizzing. When I first met her, she was a bright and bubbly Christian. In fact, she joined quizzing because she just wanted to get to know better her Lord and Savior, who she loved so much. The only problem, however, is that her Christian fellowship was a Christian fellowship that thought to hold to certain religious beliefs, you had to hold certain political beliefs, and no true Christian would hold to any political beliefs contrary to what this Christian fellowship believed, which was simply not true. She too did indeed know it was simply not true. Not only did see conflicts between their political beliefs and their religious beliefs, she saw how her differing political views actually correlated better with her religious views, but her Christian fellowship refused to listen. Nevertheless, she sought out a group of friends who would encourage and support her political stances. Unfortunately, this group of friends further verified that indeed her political stances did contradict her religious stances (again, not true), but her political views were correct, and her religious views were incorrect, so she had to abandon her religion to hold stronger to politics. At worst, I worry she’s falling away from the faith, and at least, she’s stunting her spiritual growth. Please pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, that Jesus will keep her strong, that she may be a witness to both her Christian fellowship and her friends, and that I may know how to counsel her through this rough time.

So far, my witness to her is to converse with her on the lies the group of friends have fed her, and one sticks out as peculiar, which fits well into a Mother’s Day sermon. One of the lies told by her friends is that the Bible is misogynist. Merriam-Webster defines misogyny simply as “the hatred of women.” Therefore, a misogynist hates women. Thus, to call the Bible misogynist is to say the Bible hates women. Yes, this is what her friends have claimed about the Bible: The Bible hates women. According to them, at best, the Bible treats women like second-class citizens, at worst, the Bible treats women like slaves, property to be bought, sold, and traded, so why would any self-respecting woman read the Bible? It would not surprise if so many Christian, both brothers and sisters in Christ, have heard this argument. So, while the best thing to do is pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, the next best thing to do is talk about how you can combat this lie.

Of course, there are some easy, low-hanging fruits we can go to for easy retorts. Turn to the book of Judges, turn to the fourth chapter, and read about Deborah, a prophetess, or a female prophet, who takes reign of the army of Israel when Barak refuses to do so, and she leads Israel to victory of Canaan. Turn to the book of Esther and read how the Jewish girl Hadassah becomes Esther queen of Persia, and she uses whatever little power she has to save her people from genocide across the empire. These women are hardly second-class citizens or slaves. If this is too Old Testament for you, the New Testament has lesser known but more important examples. Turn to Romans 16:1 and read how Phoebe was a deaconess. Yes, I know that can translate into “servant,” but the Greek term διάκονος (diakonos) is literally where the English word “deacon” come from, so I will be brave to enough to say, I think English Bible translations who translate it into “servant” instead of “deacon” do so to avoid alienation from the churches who have a hard stance against women leadership in church. Turn to Colossians 4:15 and read how Nympha had a church meet in her house. Yes, while “church in her house” can simply just mean she hosted a church, a lot of scholars now agree a person hosted a church because that person led the church (cf. Acts 16:15&40). Both the Old Testament and the New Testament praise women in leadership, which highly contests the notion that the Bible makes women second-class citizens or slaves.

Of course, like I’ve said, that’s easy, low-hanging fruit. Graham doesn’t do easy, low-hanging fruit; Graham does hard, high-hanging fruit. What is the high-hanging fruit of this topic? Let’s a pick a woman from the Bible that opponents of the Bible would use to prove that the Bible is misogynist. What a better character than Eve! How fitting for Mother’s Day, for the name Eve means “mother of all living,” so she everybody’s mother. I have heard some wild accusations of the Bible about Eve, and maybe you’ve even heard crazy ones yourself. Some say, “Eve is created second, making her secondary to man!” Others will say, “Eve is created differently, making Eve a lesser human!” Still other will complain, “Eve is blamed for the fall of man, and Eve is punished unreasonably harshly.” Those who oppose the Bible with these comments truly have never read the Bible themselves, for those who have read the Bible should see that, not only are all these statements false, but the Bible goes out of its way to teach the opposite.

 


Without further ado, please turn to the book of Genesis. As you turn there (like it would take anyone a long time, unless your Bible has a massive introduction and/or preface), let me point out that, from the onset, since an account of woman’s creation even exists in the Bible, the Bible cannot be misogynist. Comparing the Bible with ancient creation myths around the world will reveal the Bible is in the minority just solely in the fact it records the how woman became living human. A majority of ancient creation myths do not record any story about the creation of the woman; only a minority of the ancient creation myths do. Some have tried to justify this by declaring that the creation of woman is assumed alongside the creation of man, but others rightfully state that the ancient creation myths without retelling the creation of women subtly hint that the world has no need for women.

 


The minority of ancient creation myths that do mention the creation of women have a habit of putting the creation of women in a negative light. For example, look no further than the famous Greek myth of Pandora’s Box. According to the Ancient Greeks, the myth takes place during the Golden Age, when there were just men (and no women), when technology rapidly advanced, when no man had any want or need because man shared all resources equally, and man had no enemies or foes…except Zeus. See, with the help of Prometheus, the Greek titan Zeus assigned to creating men, men had tricked Zeus into accepting offering of bones instead of the fat of the meats, and men had stolen fire, sacred to the gods. Now Zeus had already punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountain and having an eagle eat his liver daily. As for man, however, Zeus thought man had it going too well, so he wanted unleash sorrow and suffering onto them. Fortunately, he had a jar (yes, you heard me right: jar. Apparently, Erasmus mistranslated it during medieval times, and nobody ever bothered to correct him. Since, however, everybody is used to calling it a box, I will continue to call it a box.) that held sorrows and suffering. Unfortunately, Zeus could not open it on man, or else the suffering and sorrows would come back on him. Furthermore, men were on edge because Prometheus warned them not to take anything from Zeus, so men could not easily be tricked. Therefore, Zeus decided to try creating a human himself, and this human would become the first women. Zeus got all the gods involved. For example. Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, to make her beautiful. As another example, Hermes, the messenger god, taught her an eloquent tongue to speak well. Hence, her name was Pandora, meaning “all endowed” or “all gifted.” Finally, Zeus gave her 2 gifts: the gift of curiosity and the gift of the box full of sorrows and suffering. Zeus told Pandora, “Don’t open the box, for no mortal should look on it,” conveniently leaving out what is in the box. Well, a box with unknown contents and a curious woman are a bad combination, and it is only a matter of time before Pandora opens the box and unleashes the curse of sorrows and suffering on man. The moral of the story seems to be, “Darn those women and their curiosity! If it wasn’t for woman’s curiosity, humanity would be cursed with suffering!” Now at this point, one may think, “Well, that may explain why women suffer, but it does not explain the suffering of men because a woman opened the box, not a man.” That’s right! What you heard was the more famous, rated G version of the story. There’s an alternative, rated R, version of the story in which Pandora says to men, “Hey, if you can open this jar for me (maybe this is where the stereotype of the woman not able to open the pickle jar comes from), I’ll do anything with you,” to which the men say, “Anything?” and Pandora replies, “Anything!” Yes, that’s exactly what you think it means. This is worse! At least with the former legend, curiosity just got the best of Pandora. In this myth, Pandora actively seduces man to bring curses upon humanity. The clear moral of this story is, “Beware of women! They will use the sexuality to seduce you and to curse you, which will always bring sorrow and suffering!” Now the reason for man’s suffering falls less on the contents of the box/jar and more on the woman herself. Why do men seek to become richer, so much so that they will make other men poor in the process? To impress women, of course! Why do men seek to become the most powerful kings and emperors, to the point of enslaving other men? So, they can marry any woman they want, of course! Now that’s a sexist and misogynist origin story! As stated earlier, and pointed out now, many ancient myths do not mention the creation of the woman, and those that do, a lot of them mention the creation of woman as a negative thing. The Bible, however, does mention the creation of the woman, and as will be drawn out soon, the Bible puts the creation of woman in a positive light.

Let’s dive into the actual text. The meat of the text will come from Genesis 2, but the trip to Genesis 2 requires a pitstop in Genesis. For those unfamiliar with the book of Genesis, Genesis has 2 creations accounts. Commentators have different explanations on why, with some more blasphemous or heretical others. Personally, I believe Genesis records 2 different creation narratives because it tells the same story from different perspectives. Genesis 1 talks about the creation from God’s point of view, as God lays out an organized plan to bring order to the chaos. Genesis 2 tells the creation story from the human’s point of view, as God creates the perfect habitat around man. Since Genesis 2 comes from the human’s point of view, most of the theology about woman will come from Genesis 2, but Genesis 1 does have an important fact worth noting.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ~Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

While so much can come out from this verse, pertinent to this study, three words need extra highlighting. The “man” in “So God created man in his own image” is the Hebrew term אָדָם (adam). Now the “man” here in אָדָם (adam) is short for “human,” which is short for “human being.” The last line of the verse states that God created them זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (neqēḇāh). Most, if not all, Bibles translate the two Hebrew words as “male” and “female,” and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some people living in the 21st century insist that that gender and sex are not interchangeable, and they also insist that gender is a social construct (which I actually understand to extent). Therefore, I must state this bluntly: a זָכָר (zāḵār) has a penis, and a נְקֵבָה (neqēḇāh) has a vagina. For proof, look further than a few chapters later. In Genesis 6&7, the Lord commands Noah to bring animals in the ark, זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (neqēḇāh), with the clear intentions for them to multiply and fill the earth after the flood. There is no way around it and for good reason. In this one little verse in Genesis 1:27, God warns the reader, “Alright, when you go into the next chapter, you will discover that I created the woman after the man, and you will also find out that I created the woman in a different manner. This does not make her more or less in the image of God. The woman is equally made in the image of God.” Thus, the theology taught about the woman from Genesis 1:27 is that the woman was equally made in the image of God. Now let’s advance to meat of the creation story of the woman.

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. ~Genesis 2:19&20 (ESV)

Although the text does not paint the most vivid picture, it has enough description to imagine what happened here. (Disclaimer: what you read in the remainder of the paragraph consists of nothing original, as the rest of the paragraph contains bits and pieces I have picked up from pastors and comedians alike.) The Lord says to Adam, “Okay, here’s the deal, I’m going to bring these animals to you one by one, and whatever you want to name them, that’s its name. Seriously, the first thing that comes to your mind, that’s its name.” Adam responds, “Okay, no problem, I got this.” God brings in the first in the first animal, “Alright, Adam, I got this animal. It's one of the larger animals. It’s gray. It’s got a big jaw. It likes being in the water. What are we calling it?” Adam announces, “Hippopotamus!” Picture a stenographer angel off to the side, asking “How do you want me to spell that?” The Lord tells the angel, “Oh, just sound it out.” Then God turns to Adam and says, “Okay, I’m bringing in the next animal. This animal is also one of the large ones, and it’s gray, too. This one, however, has a horn. What’s its name?” Adam is now starting to get in the groove, and he declares, “Rhinoceros!” The poor stenographer angel is mumbling under his breath, “Wow, seriously, where did he get this guy?” Unfortunately, as time passes, and as the animals get smaller, Adam is getting tired, and not one creative idea is left. “Alright, Adam,” the Lord tells Adam, “Here’s the next one. What its name?” Adam replies, “Dog?” God is like, “Hey, that’s just my name backwards…never mind, whatever, here’s the next one, Adam. What’s its name?” Adam sighs and states its name, “Cat?” God is like, “Oh, hey, wait, I didn’t make one of those…” (Just joking! Just kidding! Just playing! I own a cat, and I love my cat!) If you think that’s bad, it got worse when it came time to name insects! The Lord asks Adam, “Hey Adam, what are we calling that insect hopping along the grass?” Adam takes a big sigh and announces, “Grasshopper.” God proceeds, “Okay…well, what are we naming that insect flying around that animal you named a horse?” Adam takes a deeper sigher and declares, “Horsefly.” At this point, the Lord probably told Adam, “Let’s take a break, before you name all the fishes swims…”

In all seriousness, though, something has to be going on here, for the naming of animals interrupts the creation of the woman. Imagine that the Lord is not merely brining Adam the animals to name one by one, but rather, picture God bring Adam the animals two by two. Not only does Adam name the animal species, but he also gives names to both the males and the females. (I apologize in advance, for I am neither a zoologist nor a farmer, so I will probably butcher this, but you should still understand the illustration.) Imagine Adam saying, “Alright, this animal species we shall call a horse, which the males we will call stallions, and the females we will call mares.” Picture Adam stating, “This animal we will name bovine, which we will name the males bulls and the females cows.” Imagine Adam announcing, “This animal species we shall call pig, which the males we will call boars, and the females sows.” Picture Adam declaring, “The animal we will name a chicken, which the males will be named roosters, and the females hens.” As Adam goes through the process, he comes to a realization. He must have realized, “I’m a אָדָם (adam), or a human being, and the זָכָר (zāḵār)/male human is a אִישׁ (ʾîš), then where is the נְקֵבָה (neqēḇāh)/female human being?”


All of a sudden, Adam becomes sad. All of a sudden, the reader (and maybe the original audience of the Israelites? And maybe the angels watching Yahweh create?) panics! In Genesis 1, with every day of creation, God announces the day’s creation was טוֹב (tov), or “good.” In fact, when the Lord overlooks everything that he created, he declares the creation ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד (tov meod), or “very good.” For the first time in the Scriptures, located right in Genesis 2:18, the Lord has to state that something as לֹא־ט֛וֹב (lo-tov), or “not good,” and it’s the fact the man is alone. How can the very good creation, the perfect habitat for humanity, have something that is not good? Indeed, a good reason to panic! Before anyone can panic, God makes known that he has a plan.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ~Genesis 2:18 (ESV)

In the Hebrew, Yahweh announces that he will make a עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr keněḡěḏo) for man. Depending on your English Bible translation, the עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr keněḡěḏo)  will translate into “helper suitable for him” (NASB), “helper fit for him” (ESV & RSV), “help meet for him” (KJV), “helper comparable to him” (NKJV), “helper as his complement” (CSB), “helper as his partner” (NRSV), “helper suitable for him” (NIV, both 1984 and 2011 editions) or “helper who is just right for him” (NLT). The כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (keněḡěḏo) part literally translate into “like what is in front of him.” Most commentators equate this to mean “corresponding to him” or “alongside him,” but I would even equate it to mean “equal to him” or “similar to him.” More interesting, however, is the עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). From the root עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) comes the name Ezra, but most often עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) does not refer to a human, but it refers to the Lord himself! In Exodus 18:4, when Moses recognizes how God freed the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, Moses calls Yahweh an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). David names the Lord an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) whenever David escapes from his enemies or wins victoriously over his enemies (see Psalms 20:2, 70:5, 89:19, 121:1&2, 124:8 and 146:5). Between Moses and David, the common denominator lies within the fact that God has brought salvation or deliverance, thus making Yahweh a savior or deliver. This makes sense because the verb form of עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) is עָזַר (ʿāzar). The verb עָזַר (ʿāzar) means “to deliver from death” or “to save from danger.” Therefore, עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) could translate “savior.” Thus, the Lord declares here that he will make “a savior equal to him.”

My sisters in Christ, especially the wives and mothers out there, I am going to give you some fuel to the fire on this Mother’s Day. I imagine as the good Christian couples you are, you two don’t get into any fights, or arguments, or even debates 😉. You just sometimes get into some “intense discussions” 😉. Ladies, next time you find yourself in one of these “intense discussions” with your boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, if he starts getting a little mouthy with you, you snap back and say, “Hey! Remember I am your savior! There you were in your singleness! You were eating canned food and frozen meals because you couldn’t cook. Your living quarters were a pigsty! Your fashion sense so out of whack it was embarrassing to just stand around you! You had to get down on one knee and beg me to marry you, and you even had to bribe me with a diamond ring! You do not talk to your savior like that!” Now my brothers in Christ, I can imagine what you’re thinking. You are probably thinking to yourself, “Well, my girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God like my true savior is.” That’s true, you’re right, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God (sorry, ladies, you’re not getting away with that, even on Mother’s Day). I would also imagine, however, that Christ’s will for your life is not always how you wanted to go. I imagine you may have vented your frustration to Jesus. After all, if prayer is simply communicating with God, you may have prayed or communicated with God your frustrations. In venting your frustrations, however, you probably never used foul language, you probably never name called, you probably never used put downs or talked down, you probably never resorted to logical fallacies. In the same way, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife does not deserve foul language, name calling, put downs, belittling or logical fallacies in your “intense discussion.” If anybody gets anything out of this point, remember God created the woman to be your savior, so boyfriends and husbands, thank your girlfriend or wife for something that she saved you from, whether that be from loneliness, failure, lack, processed meals, a dirty home, or an out of whack fashion sense.

 


21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. ~Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)

According to Genesis 2:21 in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh created the woman by taking man’s צֵלָע (ṣēlāʿ), which better translates into “side.” Quite possibly, somewhere along the translation line, somebody saw that the Hebrew manuscript said “side,” looked at the human anatomy, wonder to himself, “Now what side organ could the Lord have used to create the woman?” and from that he somehow concluded “rib,” which tradition just stuck with, even until now. Personally, I like to think this is the first recorded kidney transplant. I know some Christians still refuse organ transplants, claiming an organ transplant runs contrary to the Christian faith, but such an argument falls flat when God himself performs an organ transplant. Ultimately, the argument over which organ Yahweh used has no importance, for the symbolism carries the significance of the Lord making the woman out of the man’s side. Now I am going to do something I don’t quite often do: quote Matthew Henry. See, Matthew Henry is like a Nintendo 64: it was really great in its date, but now, it’s incredibly out of date and looks bad. This quote from Matthew Henry, however, has aged quite gracefully. In his commentary on Genesis 2:21-25, Matthew Henry comments, “the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” Everybody can let out an “aww” right now. Cuteness aside, Matthew Henry hits on an important part. Even the body part the Lord chose to make the woman out of reflects the woman’s equal status to man.

 

Matthew Henry

Genesis 2:22 records that God brought the woman to the man, just like he did with the animals. The text invites the reader to imagine Yahweh approaching the just awoken Adam, saying in a sing-song voice, “Oh Adam, I have someone else for you to name…” and Adam begins, “Oh come on, Lord, I just woke up, can’t you give me just a bit more time, I just need…” but then Adam sees God’s newest creation and says, “Woah man!” Yes, I couldn’t resist, but there’s a point to that, which will become apparent soon.

At this point in Genesis 2:23, the narrative prose stops and poetry begins. The shift in writing style probably intended to highlight the creation of the woman. The first word to come out of Adam’s mouth is הַפַּ֗עַם (hapǎǎm), or “at last” or “finally,” pointing back to conflict of Adam not finding his equivalent when naming the animals. Adam’s first comments observe how the woman has the bone and flesh and he does. On the surface level, by doing so, Adam observes that Yahweh has made the woman out of the same stuff as him, which already makes her his equal. This is why I included Genesis 2:25 as part of the Scripture. Because both are naked, Adam can clearly see different body parts, yet he states she is made of the same stuff. In Hebrew poetry, however, bones typically symbolize strength, and flesh typically symbolize weakness. Therefore, Adam’s comments observe how the woman shares in the same strengths and weaknesses as he does, further emphasizing the equality. Even more to the point, the ancient Hebrews used the phrase “my own flesh and bones” like modern English-speakers say, “my own flesh and blood.” The saying emphasizes a relationship, even more further highlighting equality.

To cap everything off, Adam names the Lord’s newest creation “woman,” or in the Hebrew text אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). The Hebrew term for “man” (as in male human) is אִישׁ (ʾīš), and now the Hebrew word for “woman” (as in female human) is אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). Even without knowing the Hebrew language, anybody can see the terms are remarkably similar, almost the exact same word, with the exception of the extra letter in the end. In fact, this will become a pattern in the Hebrew language, for most, if not all, of the female animal names will simply be the male animal names with a hey at the end. For example, for horses, the male stallion Hebrew is סוּס (sûs), and the female mare is סוּסָה (sûsāh). Even in the naming of the woman reflects the similarity of the woman to the man, almost the same, which displays her equality.

 

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

       “Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

       on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

15    I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

       he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

       “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

       Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,

but he shall rule over you.”

17 And to Adam he said,

       “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

       of which I commanded you,

‘You shall not eat of it,’

       cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

18    thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19    By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

       till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

       for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.”

~Genesis 3:14-19 (ESV)

 

While I want to focus in on Yahweh conversing with the woman, I put the Lord’s whole dialogue here, in the hopes of seeing a pattern and a lack thereof. Note how God never explicitly curses the woman. Literally, the term “curse,” or אָרַר (ʾārǎr) in the Hebrew text only applies to the serpent (3:14) and the ground (3;17). Notice how Yahweh’s speech the serpent and to Adam begins with “because you…” but the Lord omits this beginning when talking to the woman. Between these two observations, it would seem that what God tells the woman falls more under descriptive than prescriptive. In order words, Yahweh does not actively penalize the woman here, but rather, the Lord passively reminds the woman that sin has its consequences, God makes her fully aware of those consequences. In all fairness to the woman, the serpent deceived the woman, whereas the serpent and the men deliberately rebelled in their sin, as evident by their punishment starting with “because you…”

A lot could be said about Yahweh announcing a multiplication of the woman’s pain in childbearing, but more pertinent to our point about the misogyny entering the world as a result of the fall, Genesis 3:16b deserves more examination. The key words in Genesis 3:16b are תְּשׁוּקָה (tešûqāh) and מָשַׁל (māšǎl). Now תְּשׁוּקָה (tešûqāh) is an exceedingly rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing three times. The first one appears here in Genesis 3:16b. The last one happens in Song of Solomon 7:10, in which, ironically, the man desires the woman, as opposed to Genesis 3:16b, in which the woman desires the man. The middle instance occurs in Genesis 4:7, and this instance also pairs with מָשַׁל (māšǎl). In Genesis 4:7, the Lord informs Cain of what sin wants to do to him. Just as mankind and sin find themselves in a constant struggle of control, as evident by Genesis 4:7, so the man and the woman will find themselves in constant struggle of dominating and submitting, as evident by Genesis 3:16b. What Yahweh intended to become an equal relationship, sin would make a power struggle of dominance and submission. What the Lord intended to become “to love and to cherish” became “to dominate and to submit.” What God intended for reciprocal love would turn into marital stress and strain. Some have used their verse to explain why, even in the most patriarchal societies, despite a woman’s craving for independence, she would still succumb to a marriage. Other have even gone as far as using this verse to explain why some women will still stay with the most abusive husbands. Either way, even if these points are true, the truth remains that sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are the result of evil sin infiltrating Yahweh’s good creation.

The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living ~Genesis 3:20 (ESV).

 Scholars could and have said much about the name of Eve. Without diving too much in the Hebrew language, a few things deserve pointing out for the name Eve. First, note that the Hebrew name for Eve, חַוָּ֑ה (havvah), looks nothing like the Hebrew term for humans, אָדָם (adam), or the Hebrew word for man, אִישׁ (ʾîš). Already, the sinful nature has begun taking over Adam, and he has already begun distancing himself from Eve. Second, notice how Eve’s name means “mother of all living.” No longer is the woman “a savior equal to him,” but rather, Adam sees Eve as just “the mother of his children.” Ouch! Again, the sinful nature in Adam desires to distance himself from Eve. Together they reveal that, when Adam names the woman Eve, he treats her no differently than when he named the animals, asserting his dominance over the woman, demanding her submissiveness. Once again, the sexism, misogyny and patriarchy came about as a product of humanity’s fall into sin.

Not only does Genesis 3 not direct the primary blame for the Fall upon the woman Eve, the whole Bible does not direct the primary blame for the Fall, especially including the New Testament. Take a look at a couple New Testament verses-

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ~Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)

21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ~1 Corinthians 15:22&23 (ESV)

Note how both Scriptures don’t say “the woman” or “Eve.” Notice how both passages don’t even say “the man and the woman” or “Adam and Eve.” Both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 merely put the blame of sin and death on the man, on Adam. The idea of woman solely bringing sin, death, sorrows and suffering into the world would make sense to either the Old Testament Jew or the New Testament Christian.

Before closing, let me briefly touch on some objections some may have, but please note that these 2 exceptions I will bring up deserve a close and thorough examination, each on their own.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ~1 Corinthians 11:3,7-12 (ESV)

Please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Greek term κεφαλή (kephalē) literally means “head,” but figurately it means “authority” or “source.” I prefer the latter because then 1 Corinthians 11:3 points back to Genesis 2:21&22. 1 Corinthians 10:7 reminds the reader that Paul wants to address why he believes men should prayer and prophesy with heads uncovered, while women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered. A cult in Corinth allowed women to pray with their heads uncovered, which would sometimes come off as sexual. Paul did not want the new and budding church in Corinth to get mixed with the cult. Paul’s command here for women to cover their heads intended to distance the church from the cult, and also quite possibly prevent women from becoming a sexual distraction in the Christian church. The idea of woman becoming the glory of man does not put her is a submissive or servient role. To the contrary, the woman received glory by giving glory to her husband. If anything, Paul presents giving glory to the husband as another opportunity women could give glory to God. Paul recollects the creation of the woman in Genesis 2 to remind the Christian women in Corinth how God created the women to turn something not good to something good in the very good creation, and likewise, Paul calls on the women to serve God in the same exact way.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ~1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

Again, please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. When Timothy takes over the church in Ephesus, a heresy known as Gnosticism became quite popular. Gnosticism loved combining Greek and Roman philosophy with Jewish, and sometimes Christian, religion. Mixed in with all the heresy, Gnosticism at this time proclaimed a liberation and empowering of women. Paul did not necessarily oppose the liberation and empowering of women. Rather, he feared that message would lure in good Christian women, who would buy into the heresy just to get a taste of the liberation and empowerment, and then these women would proclaim the heresies back at the church. In other words, Paul feared that Gnosticism would deceive the good Christian women of Ephesus, hence why Paul emphasizes how Eve got deceived. At the current time, as the best advice Paul could think up, he advised Timothy to put hiatus on women teaching, until the church could determine the women remain uninfluenced by any heresy. Likewise, a church should only hold back on a woman preaching or teaching if they fear she will preach or teach heresy from the pulpit. Otherwise, let her preach and teach!

To conclude, anybody who claims the Bible is misogynist lies. First, while so many creation myth lack a creation of woman story, and for those that do, a lot of them put the creation of the woman in a negative light. To the contrary, the Bible does have a creation of woman story, and it does put it in a positive light. Second, the Bible clearly announces the man and the woman equally made in the image of God. Third, the Lord makes the woman with the intention that woman will become “ a savior equal” to man. Fourth, by calling her “woman,” man identifies his sameness and equality to her. Fifth, because of the lack of “because you” or “cursed” in the woman’s penalty, Yahweh deflect putting all the blame on the woman for the fall. Sixth, not until after the Fall of humanity into sin does Adam assert his dominance by naming her Eve. On this Mother’s Day, women thank the Lord for creating you the way he did, and men, thank God for putting the women, whether mother, aunts, sisters, cousins, wives, sisters or friends, into your life to serve as your “savior.”

An Evaluation of Children's Church Songs

I have an atypical daughter. Despite all the baby books stating that infants sleep 10-12 hours during the night, along with 2 hour-long naps...