Unpopular Opinion Brought To You By Emily

As close as I could get to a Kinkade without getting sued for copyright infringement.

Today I shared a post about the life, works, and death of Thomas Kinkade. (Find the post here: Facebook). Known as the “Painter of Light”, his work has become synonymous with “Christian art” and is seen in homes, offices, and churches around the world. His paintings are soft representations of a world that glows with peaceful serenity. Pretty is the word most often used to describe the landscapes where quaint cottages surrounded by delicate flowers huddle among trees beneath skies that radiate with pastel goodness.

Per standard operating procedure for me, I included the reasons I have always been mistrustful of his work which drew the standard objections that I have grown accustom to when I do open my big mouth on this issue. As my reasons for these feelings requires a rather protracted answer, I decided to respond here.

My two primary reasons for my passionate dislike of his work are:

1. Too many people fail to make the distinction between high art and decorative art. This is an essential distinction that too few are willing to recognize or acknowledge. I will explain why.

2. Artists are the single biggest influencers on the general public’s perception of truth. The role of the artist to shape culture has been denigrated and neglected even as our works are quietly shape society’s morals, ethics, and vision of the what life could be and what truth is.

Before any conversation on the arts can begin one must define the terms. For if we were speaking of Kinkade’s (dare I lump in Butcher?) works in the terms of decorative art, I would not have no objection to the high praise this man receives. However, as the distinction is seldom made and few perceive the divide between the two genres, their popularity has conditioned the believing community to discount or even recoil in disgust from the power and startling revelations of high art.

Decorative art is what we hang above the sofa. It is chosen for its beauty and the way it soothes our senses. It demands little of its viewer other than appreciation. It presents a completed idea without need for a viewer’s participation or investment. Another word for it is kitsch, Frank Burch Brown offers us this definition of kitsch: a beautiful lie that prettifies and falsifies the world, requiring an unqualified acceptance of reality.

Kitsch manipulates the emotions of its viewers in the same manner that pornography by pandering to people’s desires instead of addressing their needs, designed to elicit a predictable response by capitalizing on emotional reflexes. (Paraphrase of Roger Hazelton).

High art, to paraphrase the words of Rene Magritte, evokes mystery with attempting to define it. To attempt and do so “becomes mere joking.” High art defies clichés or definitions, (Hazelton). It brings to light an aspect of existence denied or hidden from consciousness, (Wilson Yates).

Now, why I believe these distinctions are crucial to our understanding and appreciation of art:

God has given us the blueprint for high art within the Bible. While the principles are scattered throughout Scripture, the most succinct example is the creation of the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle embodies every element required of true high art: light, space, unity, symbolic representation, and mystery. And this but a short list of ways in which the Tabernacle served as art. We are told in Exodus 28:2 that aspects were created for “glory and beauty”, but we should not overlook the bloody reality of this place of sacrifice and bloodshed.

Time and space constrain me from delving into the various ways in which the Tabernacle served as art, art such as the world has never seen before or since, but still informs the believing artist on how their works can serve as a source of awe, wonder, and inspiration. All of which the world is severely lacking, and the deficient can often be most profoundly experienced in the realm of Christian art that does not point our hearts back to the necessity of God’s intervention within this fallen creation or the hope we find in his redeeming love. Hope that can only be embraced when we stand before in full acknowledgement of our deep need of his grace and provision despite our sin.

As to point two of my objections: Artists are the single biggest influencers on the general public’s perception of truth. The role of the artist to shape culture has been denigrated and neglected even as our works are quietly shape society’s morals, ethics, and vision of the what life could be and what truth is.

In the construction of the Tabernacle, Bezalel helped shape the future of an entire nation and eventually the world. The impact of his work cannot be overstated. For the believing artist, he stands the penultimate example of what we could and should be. A brief survey of what he has to teach us artists:

 ◦ called from a young age, (a phenomenon common to artists who instinctively perceive their differentness even before they have the words to express their drive to create),

◦ he used his gifts in submission to the Lord, as reflected in his name which literally means “in the shadow of El (God).”

◦ his work was inspired through being filled by the Holy Spirit, Exodus 31:1-5

◦ he was gifted with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding; all essential to the creation of art

◦ as an artist he was teacher and leader

◦ as a person he was obscured by his art

◦ he communicated in symbols that demanded contemplation and interaction in order to be understood

◦ he translated his inspiration into a medium where others could draw inspiration

◦ his work allowed others to interact with the presence of God

If you we were to scour our Bibles for others who fit this profile, we are quickly confronted with the prophet. Point by point, can draw parallels between the roles, functions, and experience of each with the other. Don’t blow by that statement, the implications are profound and level of responsibilities placed upon the artist by extension are staggering.  And we see the truth of the artist’s ability to shape the future in evidence all around us – be it the communicator device of Star Trek that led to a world of cellular devices, the architecture and design that shape our homes separating or uniting us dependent on style and form, the grand cathedrals that draw our hearts and eyes to heaven, or the mass shooting prompted by our uninhibited consumption of gore and violence in movies. Art drives our language and therefore how we label and thus perceive our world. (How many words did Shakespeare invent that are in common usage today?)

Does this mean there is no place for decorative art or the hobbyist artist who creates simply for themselves? No, and that is not what I am implying. What I am saying is that by making the distinction, we can be more honest with ourselves and the world. We can utilize art more effectively and encourage artists to aspire to be more than commercial success by appeasing the masses. We can stop chastising and disavowing the artists whose honest and raw work are seen as too disturbing to be Christian.

I know that few people understand my passion for this topic, but in my eyes it is not a trivial matter. The favored style of Christian art has clouded our perceptions of our faith. When we paint Jesus in pastels, we drain away his humanity and fierce passion he has for each of us. When we give Moses a softly curling beard and bubble eyes, we ignore the strength and authority he must have conveyed to lead a mass of former slaves into the desert. When Mary is clothed in soft robes and the never flinching serenity of an imbecile, we do not honor the heartbreak and horror she endured. When we embody the home of our faith as Eden-esque landscapes, the power of our faith to thrive in this brutal reality is weakened.

There is a place for beauty – radiant, awe inspiring beauty, that rips your guts out stomps them on the floor beauty. This is the beauty of resurrection and redemption, but we can have neither if there was no bloody body upon the cross. And by enlarging our vision to include both the horrific and the sublime, we begin to walk in the tension of our faith that empowers us in our humble gratitude of God who is great enough to encompass both.

For further reading on this topic, check out:

Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste by Frank Burch Brown
The Grotesque Theologically Considered by Roger Hazelton
The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture In Theory And Practice by David Morgan
The Grotesque In Art And Literature: Theological Reflections by Wilson Yates
State Of The Arts From Bezalel To Mapplethorpe by Edward Veith
And one day, eventually, my book once it is written.

Who Were The Nephilim? Part 5 - Jude and the Hebrew Scripture Connection

Ruins from Bashan

Before we left Jude behind, I wanted to pause and address the two passages that are cited to refute the idea that Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch. As I studied these passages, I quickly realized that the information presented ties the passage in Jude to the Nephilim as firmly as any Enochian quote. The link is not as straightforward, but just as real. Furthermore, as these are canonical they do carry more weight.

So let’s jump in. The first passage is:

He said, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand. Deuteronomy 33:2

This chapter is Moses’ blessing upon the Hebrew people prior to their entrance into Canaan, the Promised Land. He is giving his final words before he retreats to Mount Nebo and dies. He would have chosen his words carefully. Dying men who are still in possession of all their faculties do not speak lightly or without purpose. And as readers, we need to ask why did Moses reference these two locations, Seir and Paran?

To answer that we have to back up to Genesis 14:1-16, sometimes referred to as the War of Four Against Five Kings. I want to direct you attention specifically to verses 4-6:

Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. 

Notice who was defeated: the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and the Horites. Why is this important? Who are these people? According to Josephus, ancient Hebrew historian, they are “offspring of giants”, (The Antiquities of the Jew 1.9. 174), and his conclusion is supported by Deuteronomy 2:17-25:

The LORD said to me, ‘Today you are to cross the border of Moab at Ar. And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place, as he did for the people of Esau, who live in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites before them and they dispossessed them and settled in their place even to this day. As for the Avvim, who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and settled in their place.) ‘Rise up, set out on your journey and go over the Valley of the Arnon. Behold, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to take possession, and contend with him in battle. This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.’

Now think about this with me for a moment, when the original twelve spies were sent into Canaan they came back with a report:

So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” Numbers 13:32-33

Moses had already watched the first generation to escape Egypt miss entering the Promise Land because they feared the giants. He understood that this time they could not afford to let fear rule. They needed to rise up and face this enemy confident in God’s power to defend and advance their cause in the fulfillment of the promise God had made to Abraham so many years ago. So when Moses speaks in Deuteronomy 33, he reminds the people that these sons of giants, the children of Anak, who come the Nephilim, were not invincible. They could be defeated. It had happened before, and it would happen again.

In Deuteronomy 33, we find a connection between the “ten thousand holy ones” and the land where the Nephilim lived. Not only that, we see that the holy ones are coming to defeat the Nephilim with God fighting at their side.

This brings us to the second passage using the phrase “ten thousand holy ones”, Psalms 68:17:

The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary. 

If you take the time to read the entire chapter one thing becomes clear, the central theme of this Psalm is God’s victory over his enemies. Within it we find direct references to the Exodus, the wilderness wanderings, and the conquest of Canaan, tying it back to the same events presented in Deuteronomy. However, there is an additional curiosity – the mention of Bashan in verses 15 and 16.

In Deuteronomy 3, we find the battle between the Hebrew people and Bashan, a land ruled by King Og. Verse 11, provides some interesting information about him.

For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.

The thing I almost missed was where King Og lived, you know the precise street address. Thankfully, Joshua thought to write it down.

…and Og king of Bashan, one of the remnant of the Rephaim, who lived at Ashtaroth and at Edrei… Joshua 12:4

If the city of Ashtaroth sounds familiar, it should. Look back to Genesis 14:5, Ashteroth-karnaim was city in Bashan, east of the Jordan River. The same place where the original war against the offspring of the giants went down. And what is David hoping to accomplish with his Psalm? The same thing Moses was doing in Deuteronomy 33, he was reminding the people that God is victorious no matter what enemy tries to stand before him.

No matter how we slice it, Jude is referencing the Nephilim. Whether we base his quotes on the Book of Enoch or those from the Bible. He wants his readers to make the connection between the unholy ones of Genesis 6 and the judgement that will be executed by the ten thousand holy ones. Now who exactly are these ten thousand holy ones? We will look into that next time.

Part 6 of our series: http://misdirectedmusings.blogspot.com/2016/09/who-were-nephilim-part-6-who-are-holy.html

Who Were The Nephilim? Part 4 - The Jude-Enoch Connection

St. Jude By El Greco

This is part four of an ongoing series over the Nephilim. If you would like to start at the beginning of the series, click here:Who Were The Nephilim? Part 1

As we continue to examine the question of who were the Nephilim, we cannot avoid the book of Enoch. I have already addressed the question as to whether Enoch should have been included in the Bible, shared some of the book’s history, and discussed one of the major themes of Enoch, the Watchers.  You can find that post here: Why Wasn't Enoch Included In The Bible?

In this post we are going to discuss why Jude might choose to quote from what many would consider a questionable, if not downright suspect book, and how his use of Enoch informs our understanding of the Genesis 6 account.

First off if you haven’t read through the book of Jude with Genesis 6 or the Nephilim in mind, I would encourage you to do so. It is only one chapter with twenty five verses, but packed full of information. And Jude manages to pack so much in because he alludes to several Biblical accounts from the Hebrew Scripture. So how much time you spend in Jude is completely up to you, a few minutes for a quick read through or days if you look up all the events he mentions. (Guess which one I recommend?)

Let’s begin with verse 6:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he had kept in chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day –

So here is where we must ask our first question, when did angels leave their position of authority and proper dwelling? The most common answer would be Satan’s rebellion, but there is a problem with this as we know that Satan is not bound in chains waiting until the judgement of the great day. In fact, the Bible tells us quite the opposite:

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Peter 5:8 

The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” Job 1:7

Some have tried to make Satan’s rebellion fit Jude’s words by claiming that the angels in chains are a part of the ones who fell with Satan, and thus avoiding the Enochian connection. However, there is a problem with this as nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do we have any mention of angels in chains or held captive. The only place we learn of angels held captive are here in Jude, 1 Peter, and Revelation – all New Testament writings. This is important, because if we look at Jude we quickly realize that he is not presenting new revelation. He is drawing on historical events, weaving them together, and presenting a consistent principle demonstrated throughout history in God’s dealings with humanity and the ungodly.

We should also note how he classifies the sin of these angels, on to verse 7:

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 

The important word here is “likewise”, informing us that the sin of the angels who are bound in chains was sexual in nature. Jude could have gotten that sexual part from Genesis 6, but it still does not answer the question about where he learned about them being kept in chains. Nor does feel the need to explain himself. Read through this section again, notice how he referencing these events in almost the same manner as we might reference a movie or TV show. He expects his audience to know what he is talking about.

Jude himself will answer the question in verse 14:

It was also that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold the Lord comes with ten thousand of his holy ones, to execute judgement on all and to convict the ungodly of their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners has spoken against him.” 

Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is Enoch called a prophet. We know that he was godly man who walked with God and never knew death because God took him, but aside from that we really have no further information about him…unless we are willing to admit the Book of Enoch into evidence which clearly Jude does. Consider this passage from Enoch:

And behold, he comes with ten thousand holy ones to execute judgement upon them and to destroy the impious, and to contend with all flesh concerning everything which the sinners and the impious have done and wrought against him. 1:9

We are going to come back to this text in a future post because it is significant to our understanding of who the Nephilim were. For now, it is sufficient to establish that Jude is referring to Enoch as a prophet something that is only established in the book of Enoch, from which Jude is lifting this quote.

I would be remiss if I did not note that there are two passages in the Hebrew Bible that also use the phrase “ten thousand holy ones”, and some believe that Jude was quoting from Deuteronomy 33:2 and Psalms 68:17. I believe that as Jude specifically ties his words to Enoch precludes this conclusion, and I believe that these passages actually strengthen the argument that Jude is indeed referring to the Genesis 6 episode. I would also point out the while Jude’s quotation of Enoch is not verbatim, it does more closely align with the Enochian quote than either of the two passages we find in Hebrew Scripture, and the discrepancies can largely be accounted for in translation choices such “impious” instead of “ungodly.”

My conclusion is that Jude accepted the Enochian account of the Watcher, or the Sons of God, as having some bearing on reality. I do not believe that he would have quoted from it if he viewed Enoch as erroneous or misleading. Does this mean that we should view Enoch as having the same value as holy and inspired text? I do not believe it does. If were to have that standing then it would have been canonized, but it was excluded from both the Hebrew and the Christian canons. Instead, it was serves to demonstrate how the Genesis 6 account was understood in antiquity and allows our reading to be informed by this understanding.

Jude is not alone among the New Testament authors in having such a high view of Enoch. In future post we will examine Peter’s use of Enoch in his letters and other instances where Enoch was alluded to in the New Testament text. In my next post, I will be taking a closer look at Enoch 1:9, the ten thousand holy ones, and how this relates back to the Genesis 6 episode.

For part 5 in this series, click here: Part 5 - The Jude and Hebrew Scripture Connection

The Price of Obedience

God has graciously given me a pop quiz, reminding me that what I know is of little value if I do not apply it.

I have learned so much over the years about the Bible, God, and how he interacts in this world, but there is this disconnect that happens in my life. I forget that these truths are not just some type of great spiritual abstraction. I forget that if they are to have any value they have to be lived out here and now, in this world, in this place, and before witnesses.

But even more importantly, I forget that these truths can only be witnessed if they are lived.

And who is going to live them if those of us who declare them are not willing to submit their lives to that cause?

We live in a world that has tried hijack our faith and bastardize the promises of our God. We are told that all good things come to those who serve him, those follow the rules, and have enough faith. Blessings and abundance will spring forth, we will never know suffering, pain will never touch us, respect and honor is ours for the taking.

You have heard it. I know you have. God has given you a desire and dream, and he wants nothing more than for you to have the desires he has placed in your heart. You deserve it, you are a child of the king, you will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, and your life will be fountain of joy!

But you do know what? The world doesn’t need to see more happy people being happy. Really. We already know that the people with the great houses, fabulous cars, and dream jobs are happy. Everyone gets this formula, it is sold to us in every TV ad and magazine article out there. Follow your passion, chase your dream, get enough money, have the perfect family, and make the right friends and your life will be nothing short of fulfilling and blissful.

But what about everyone else? What about those of us with the crap jobs, dysfunctional families, living pay check to pay check, and just struggling to keep breathing under the pressures of this world? What about those of us doing everything right and our lives are imploding? What about us? Is there no joy for us? No hope? No blessings spilling from the heavens despite our best efforts? What about our broken hearts that were shattered because we dared to dream, dared to hope, and dared to love? Only to broken against the reality that we live in fallen world filled with others just as broken as we have ever been? Does God not love us? Is this the price of obedience?

Yes! A thousand times, yes!

Pain is the price of obedience. For you cannot love a broken world without being broken. You cannot have dreams shattered if you never dare to dream. You cannot hurt for the pains of another if you do not open your heart to their wounds and, in turn, to be wounded. You cannot find fulfillment if you do not first empty yourself, and you cannot be disappointed if you do not dare to hope.

And all of this will happen if you step out and seek the Father’s heart for your life. You will dream big dreams, you know great hopes, and you will love with a depth that defies human understanding. And the world will seek to destroy you for daring such great things. It will take the ones you love from you, it will shred your most precious dream, and it will shatter your hopes. And God will let it, with no apologies, he will let the world do a tap dance on the graves of all that you buried along the way.

This is the test. Can you still seek him while the fanfare plays? While your enemies rejoice over you demise? When you can’t see him past the jubilant crowds? Can you trust him when you know it wasn’t just a hope or dream that died, but a part of your heart?

It will be long, cold three days and nights. And you will grieve as you have never grieved before. But can you keep coming back? Can you return to that place where that precious part of you died? Search for evidence that all you have endured wasn’t in vain? Or will you give up? Declare that God is just as dead as the dream you mourn? Or will you come with spices and nard, honoring the fact that you were once given something so precious, refusing to be bitter at its loss?

But, Emily, someone is protesting now, God gave me these hopes and dreams! I deserve to have them! He tells me so! I have it written in his Word. 

And yes, you are so right, but where does it say that any of this comes without a cost?

Show me one Abraham who didn’t put a child on the alter, a David who wasn’t chased out of his homeland, an Elijah who didn’t dine on roadkill, a Jeremiah who wasn’t thrown in a pit, a Hosea who wasn’t married to a whore, a Mary who wasn’t accused of being a slut, a Paul who was not stoned and left for dead, or Christ who did not die on a cross. If you can, I will show you someone whose testimony of God’s grace and mercy is meaningless. I will show you someone who never knew what it was to walk in true faith, to rely fully on the provision and protection of God’s love. I will show you someone who will might pay beautiful lip service to my God but never dared to follow him into the wilds. I will show you someone’s who faith was not purified and tempered in the furnace of life.

Above all, I will show you someone who never knew the beauty and glory of resurrection, and this is the good news we are to bring to the world – our God is greater than any death we may ever experience. And what better way to declare this message than to live it? To place our lives in his hands, fully aware of what it will cost, and yet still declaring the truth of his love. A love that is not defeated in lives of chaos and disappointment, but a love the will shine forth in the resurrection and vindication of his children! This is the message of hope the world needs, and it can only be witnessed if we are willing to live it.

Reader's Question - Where Exactly In The Bible Does It Say One Man And One Woman?

Reader's Question: Emily Dixon, since you're the scholar. . .where exactly in the Bible does it say one man and one woman?

I know there is the leave and cleave verse. I know there is the verse about when you have sex you become joined to that person. ( I can look up references if you'd like). Of course I am all about one woman for one man BUT I am reading in the OT right now and David was a man after God's own heart and in 2 Samuel 5:10-13 David gets blessed and the first thing he does is go out and marry more women.

So what's up with that? Is he just sinning? Or was it a cultural thing that made it okay then but not now? That can't be right either. Because God is the one who determines what sin is. . .

But anyway, I think that the Victorians are the ones who came up with some of our modern ideas like falling in love and soulmates. . .

Scratching my head over here and fuming at David for having multiple wives because I think it's wrong!

This is one of the things I love about the Bible – It tells us what did happen and not what should have happened! None of our spiritual greats were whitewashed or cleaned up. God presents them to us warts and all, and one of the reasons I find it to be so trustworthy. God could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had…oh, I don’t know? Lied. But he didn’t he chose the hard way, the honest way, and in doing so ran counter to every other known religion of man. It’s a pretty gutsy move if you think about it.

It also serves a purpose, in reading accounts like David and his multiple wives, we are reminded the Bible always points us back to God as the only source of salvation. He allowed humans to be a part of his divine plan, but in the end, he is the only one who is holy, righteous, and able to save us from ourselves.

But back to your question:

I might as well get the fun part over with, the part that rarely makes Christians happy – there is no Biblical, blanket prohibition against polygamy. You can look, but it is just not there.

This leads us to two questions:

1. Why wasn’t polygamy forbidden if it was wrong?
2. Where do we get the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Let’s start with question one: We must remember that God works within time and cultures to bring about his will. This has meant that many times instead of simply declaring something wrong or sinful, he has lead by example. Planting the seeds, and then allowing them to flourish as his people learned more about him and his divine plan for humanity. We can see how this works with polygamy, and answer question two at the same time.

The question of marriage begins in Genesis 1 and 2, when God creates Adam and Eve. We are presented with an ideal world, and in this ideal world we find one man and one woman. Polygamy would not be introduced until Lamech, the son of Cain, in Genesis 4:19. Notice that two things here: 1. We are now in a fallen world. 2. Lamech is the son of Cain who would also be remembered for following in his father’s footsteps of murder, but added pride to his list of sins. (See Genesis 4:23, 24.) In these passages we are given a clear contrast between what God intended and what sinful men did.

But the patriarchs? Someone is asking. Yup, the patriarchs had multiple wives, but when you read their tales, Abraham and Jacob, is there any way that we can interpret this as a positive thing? When Abraham decided to take Hagar as his concubine/second wife (we can go into the distinction in a later post) it was not an act of faith or obedience. Instead, it was a desperate attempt to help God out. The consequences were disastrous and many trace the ongoing violence in the Middle East, even of today, back to this event. Jacob had four wives, or two wives and two concubines if you wish to be technical, and the rivalries between the women and their children ripped his house a part. The Bible is not offering these stories as endorsements, but rather as cautionary tales. This is also true of David’s multiple wives, we see how it led to nothing but grief for him and his children. We could go, but that would result in something a bit too long for a blog post.

So how did we go from polygamy being tolerated to being forbidden?

First of all, God introduced laws that made polygamy more and more impractical. The first of these laws were directed to the population as a whole. (See Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, and Deuteronomy 17:17.) However, he upped the ante for those who occupied a, for lack of a better word, more holy position such as the priests who were not allowed to have more than one wife. (Leviticus 21:13.)

But the real death blow to polygamy were the words of the prophets who, in the eyes of the rabbis, equated polygamy with idolatry. Consider these verses:

“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more. And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD. Hosea 2:16-20 

Israel Forsakes the LORD The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD, “I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holy to the LORD, the firstfruits of his harvest. All who ate of it incurred guilt; disaster came upon them, declares the LORD.” Jeremiah 2:1-3

I would also include Ezekiel 16, a chapter that really should be read in its entirety to be appreciated, and the last chapter of Proverbs. At first glance, it might seem that these verses had little to do with polygamy, but this is where one more piece of the puzzle will clarify the picture. The prophets did not merely speak a message, they lived their message. Their lives were to be a living, breathing example of God’s revelation of truth, and so while they are busy talking about the beauty of God’s marriage to Israel they are also embodying it. And how did they do that? Through monogamous marriages.

Now, if you go looking for a verse that states that you are not going to find it. We know this about their marriages two ways: 1. They never reference multiple wives in any of their writings. Instead, they talk of one wife. 2. This is the history preserved about them by the Jewish community in rabbinic writings in which multiple debates on this matter were recorded. And we should not overlook the fact that most of these ideas were already being solidified in Jesus time, so the definitions of marriage based on this reasoning was inherited by the Christian church. The Jewish understanding of what marriage was and how it functioned as symbol of God’s love for his chosen people served as the basis for our Christian understanding of what marriage should be.

When discussing marriage with the Rabbis of his day, Jesus refers back to the ideal of Genesis one. Paul places the restriction upon leaders in the church based on the Levitical command for the priests. Peter expands the idea, indirectly, in his affirmation that all believers are part of this new royal priesthood. And it makes perfect sense that we would adhere to this standard if we affirm that as Christians we are to emulate Jesus, the bridegroom of the Church, husband to one wife.

So do we have a single verse that definitively defines marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman? No, we definitely do not. The closest thing we have is the leave and cleave verse cited by my questioner (Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9). And while I consider that definitive enough, I know that it is not as direct as many wish it would be. However, when we pull all the pieces of the puzzle together, we have a rather convincing case that monogamy is God’s design, and one that he has chosen for himself.

But not to forget the question of David – he was sinning.

And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. Deuteronomy 17:17 

David allowed the customs of his day to dictate his actions, and in doing so set the precedent for Solomon who would take his father’s behavior to extremes. Solomon’s heart was turned away, and the kings that would follow in his footsteps would seek to emulate his glory instead of seeking the heart of God. These pursuits would leave the nation spiritually bankrupt and led into exile for their sins.

It is hard for us to think of David entertaining sin and still being man after God’s own heart, but I think it is important for us to see the whole picture of who he was. He was a sinner. He was guilty of so much, sins so heinous that he would not be welcomed into most churches today, but God is bigger than our sin. God isn’t frightened by it, and he doesn’t miss who we really are beneath our stupid, prideful actions. He knows that in this world we are going to screw up, but he isn’t looking for perfection. He is looking for hearts that seek to know him even in the midst of our failings. Is this permission to do whatever we wish? No, it is encouragement not to give up, to keep chasing after God’s heart, and to seek him even when our sins so black that they are all the world can see in us. He is there declaring he sees more and celebrating any and all who will rely upon him to wash these sins from our hearts.

Reader's Question: Why Did Noah Curse His Son?

Reader's Question: Why did Noah curse his son for uncovering his nakedness? Was it such a sin to see your father naked or did he look just a little too long?

This is the part of Noah’s tale that Veggie Tales skipped and we don’t often include in the flannel graph presentations at Vacation Bible School. If you are unfamiliar with the tale, you can find it in Genesis 9:18-28, but it basically goes like this.

Noah and his family had survived the flood and were beginning to put their lives back together. For Noah, one of the first priorities was to plant a vineyard, and it wasn’t because he liked grapes and raisins all that much. No, Noah had a hankering for some wine which he promptly made and then proceeded to get smashed. (That’s drunk for all of you good Southern Baptists.) And he didn’t get just a little tipsy or buzzed. No, he was black out drunk.

While he incapacitated, his youngest son Ham decided to take advantage of the situation and this is where the story gets a little murky. The Bible plainly says that Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness, but we don’t know precisely what that means. We do know that whatever went down was bad enough for Noah to curse, not his son, but his grandson. That’s right. Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan.
I, for one and along with many other Biblical scholars, highly doubt that this was a simple case of seeing his father naked. Remember the time frame we are dealing with, there are few houses and no indoor plumbing. And the houses that might have existed would have been small one room dwellings that have a way of creating a level of family togetherness that we just don’t experience all that often today. So if it as more than looking what, was it?

There are actually three options:

The first is that Ham sexually assaulted his father. That’s right, we are talking about homosexual, incestuous rape committed against his drunken father. (You can see why reenacting this with Bob and Larry might pose some difficulties.)  Typically when the Bible uses the phrase “uncover the nakedness of…” it is referring to a sexual act, check out Leviticus 18 to see this in action. However, this explanation does not explain why Noah would curse Ham’s son. I mean, sure maybe he was the one drinking with Noah, egging him on to the next glass, but the timing is all wrong. I just don’t see Noah whose first significant act upon leaving the ark is to plant a vineyard taking the time to age wine for well over a decade before sampling it.

Which brings us to the second option, supported by the following two verses:

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. Leviticus 18:7

If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:11

The nakedness of the father is the nakedness of the father’s wife. In other words, Ham may have had sex with his mother while his father was to inebriated to defend her. Why Ham would do such a thing is a matter of debate. Was it lust? Who knows? It could have been that simple, but it also could have been part of a larger statement. In Biblical times having sex with another man’s wife or concubine was political move. We see this in 2 Samuel 16:22 when Absalom has sex with David’s concubines. In essence, Absalom was saying if, “I can take his place between these women’s legs, I can take his place as king.” This was also why Absalom did so publicly or, as the Bible says, “in the sight of all Israel.” He wanted everyone to know what he did, and he wanted everyone to see how powerless his father was to stop it.
Ham may have been doing the same thing. Notice verse 22:

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

There was no cover up or attempt to hide what he did. He did not even bother to cover his “father’s nakedness”, which in this theory was his mother, but instead left the scene for his brothers to witness. He told them what they were going to find and where to find her. Which causes me to ask, why would he do that unless he was trying to make a statement? I think he was trying to claim his position of dominance. He wanted them to know that he was going to rule in this rebirth civilization. He was not going to be subservient or even respectful to his own parents or his older siblings. He wanted power and he was going to take it.

If this is correct, then it also answers why Noah would curse his own grandson and not the father responsible this act. For it is entirely possible that the Ham’s son was born to his mother, the product of incest and defiance. This may be why the author felt the need to identify Ham as Canaan’s father, not once but twice. It is possible he wanted there to be no doubt that the Canaan while born to Noah’s wife was not Noah’s son. Bloodlines are highly important within Jewish culture, to confirm this just wade through all the “begats” in Numbers, and the writer seems to be intent on making sure there was no mistakes or confusion about Canaan’s parentage.

The third option is equally disturbing as the other two. Midrash claims that Ham castrated his father to prevent Noah from having any more sons. This would have somehow made Ham greater than his father by him having four sons instead of three as Noah did. So Noah curses Ham’s fourth son. I think this is less likely, but I wanted throw it out there since it has been proposed.

I think which every option you find most convincing, it all comes down to one thing – this was far more than simply seeing is father naked. Ham took advantage of his father’s drunkenness to inflict damage upon Noah. The precise nature of that damage may always be in question, but the severity of Noah’s curse reveals that Ham’s actions were to have lingering consequences throughout time.

Love Is Not Enough - A Response to Rage After the Orlando Shooting

Rage, hatred, venom, and bile – the contents of my Facebook feed this morning. As I sat there trying to skim past the vitriol spewing forth from news sources, churches, the LGBT community, friends, family, and strangers, I realized that it was unavoidable. Our country, our world, has been consumed by frenzied wrath orchestrated by hate-mongers who co-opted the shooting in Orlando as their own personal soap box for whatever cause they deem significant.

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone is supporting a cause that is greater than yours. Everyone has religious, political, moral, or social outrage that needs to be addressed, and it can only be satisfied by your total subservience and homage to their wrath.

And as much as I hate the destructive power of anger, I could feel it sweeping over me. The temptation to rise up, match their rage with my own, demand that they be silent before my more righteous cause, and in doing so merely add my voice to the ever rising din of fury.

Overwhelmed and sickened by it all, I shut off my phone and tried to pray, but all I felt was anger. So I prayed the only thing I could, “God, I need to see this from your perspective, because mine is too small.”

As I sat there trying to subdue my own churning feelings, thoughts began to form. Hurting people hurt people, cliché but true. Unhealed hearts cry out for vindication because they believe healing is impossible. Unredeemed scars fester with bitterness because they are seen as pointless pain. The powerless find power in their victimhood, and the scared lash out because they believe there is no one defend or save them from their terror. The tormented find their identity in their torment and allow their tormentors to define them. And the insecure justify their actions by the fear of those who challenge their stance and the affirmation of those who share in their insecurities.

What is the answer? Vision.

A vision of hope, a vision of healing, a vision of restoration, of deliverance, and purpose. A vision of who they are in the eyes of God, a vison of his love, protection, mercy, and grace. A vision of significance that exceeds personal agendas and political wrangling. A vision that allows us to know that we are more than who we have claimed to be and more than who the world wishes us to be. A vision that cuts across the boundaries of you and I. A vision that exceeds the confines that this world or even our own flesh places upon us. A vision that inspires and empowers us to dare to dream again, to fight again, and to simply be again.

We have lost that vision. We have polluted and degraded it until we are nothing more than creatures of our own making. We have defined ourselves according to titles and traits that are beneath us, and reveled in our right to do so.  We have cut ourselves and the cried because we bled, blaming another for actions, and refusing to take responsibility for the damage we have inflicted on ourselves. We surrendered our God given identities then scream because another dares to call us by the name of the beasts we have become. For while we hate truth, we are more than willing to use it as a knife upon another if it will make them look more like our disfigured selves.  Misery does love company, even if it is that of an enemy who shares in the pain we feel.

So we rage, we scream, we whip others into a frenzy to enjoy their company.  We justify our anger by pointing to the anger we have engendered in those around. We incite, and we riot with the incessant tapping of keys upon our keyboards. Hiding from reality even as we seek to define it for another with our words of hate.

The temptation that faces us all is to deny seeing this in ourselves, not the opposition, not those we have labeled as foe, and not those who dare to hold a view contrary to ours. For we can do nothing to alleviate or rescind their guilt, that is a task we must all face alone before our God. We must all find that place where we learn that our protests mean nothing before him, and our excuses are meaningless in light of his holiness. That place where we embrace the truth that we cannot vindicate or justify our fear and hate because another has allowed these things to rule in their hearts. Instead, we are to serve our King and Lord, refusing to let him be dethroned from hearts by the wrath of another.

And despite what we have been told, love is not enough. It never was. For love is an abstraction wit no real meaning apart from the one who embodies it, and our duty as believers is to embody that vision, the vision of the Father’s love for us and to the world. We cannot do that from a place of fear and rage. For if fear and rage is all we offer then how are they to see a Father who loves, a Father who forgives, who heals, and restores? For surely, they reason in their hearts, we have received none of these great gifts if that is all we have offer another. And I do not want to offer the world another lie upon which to cut themselves.