What is Me?

For those of you who follow this blog, you know that I think somewhat uniquely. Today I want to take up the challenge of defining what ‘you’ are. I’ve heard frequently about how we need to die to self, because ‘you’ are not holy. I think that we as Christians need to be extremely cautious and careful with the words and definitions of those words that we choose. In one moment we can say that God loves you, and that He accepts you just as you are, so come to Him for salvation, and then we turn right around in the next statement to say that you need to die to self, you are a sinner, the sinful nature cannot please God, and all sorts of statements like this.

I have a difficult time with this.

Why is it that Jesus would come to give us life and life abundantly, and then expect that we should only die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die? Are these contradictions? If they are, then why do we continue to teach them? If they are not, then what exactly is being expressed?

Lets start with a simple statement.

Salvation is based upon new birth. What does that mean? The new birth goes back to prophecies like Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33. Now, if we read the context, it is quite obvious that what is being spoken of is intended for national Israel. Let’s look at these two verses in specific. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel) “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah)

When we read our New Testaments, we find the teaching of the apostles declaring that this has already broken forth. For example, “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on the tablets of human hearts,” 2 Corinthians 3:3. “He saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” Titus 3:5. “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty consciences and having our bodies washed with pure water,” Hebrews 10:22. “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” 1 Peter 1:3.

I think that this is what we’re talking about with the “dying to self” thing. We die to self, which is to say, our old man. What is the “old man”? The old man is the person that we had become before conversion, the one destined to destruction. There were habits, mindsets, attitudes, sinful ambitions, greed, lust, anger and bitterness, and all sorts of evil built up in that old ‘you’. But when we come to Christ, when we enter the Kingdom of God, that heart of wickedness is taken out and replaced with a heart of flesh – the heart that desires only to do what is good and right. Where, then, is there room for statements of dying to self? Our self is no longer evil. Therefore, Paul boldly proclaims, “He who is in Christ is a new creation; behold, ALL things are become new.”

I actually have a problem when people say that we are continually supposed to die to self. I think it is semantics, though. We are indeed to die to the flesh – that old nature – and live from the power of God. We conform no longer to the pattern and mindsets of this world, but are instead transformed by the renewing of our minds. To this I give a wholehearted amen. My contention, then, is simply on the word “self”. What do we mean by this?

David, for example, in Psalm 56 asks the question, “What can mortal man do to me?” If we really think about it, especially when we look at the context of the Psalm, man can do a lot to David. He is already being persecuted. He is already being slandered and tormented by evil men. Obviously, mortal men are already doing something to him. So, the question can’t be about whether men can harm David physically or socially. The question seems to imply a different definition of the “me” that David is speaking of. What David is speaking of is the new man. It is who David is in the deepest depths. This is who David is in God – who the Maker has created David to be.

Let us go back to the initial difficulty.

Why is there always so much language about death? It seems to me that if you’ve died with Christ and been raised by the glory of the Father that you’ve already died and don’t need to keep dying. This is true. You’ve entered into new life, and therefore you don’t need to any longer “die to self” – unless, of course, you haven’t truly died to self. So, the question is no longer about “me” at that point, but instead about the sin that lives in me. As Paul says, “It is no longer I that sin, but the sin that dwells in me.”

The ‘you’, the ‘me’, it is speaking of who Christ has made us to be. It is speaking of that deep depth of who we are. There is nothing in that that needs to be put to death. When we come to Christ, we find that we’re not living from who God has made us to be. The essence of our being has been suppressed and cast aside – covered over with masks and supposed personality traits – twice dead. We indeed were dead in our trespasses and sins, but don’t neglect that Christ has made us alive through resurrection!

What we need to ask is two things. Does my life conform to how Scripture says I am to live and act? Am I living from who God has intended me to be, instead of someone else’s projection what what “Christ-likeness” is (including my own projection)?

To conclude, then, I hope this is freedom for some of you. Some of you have been oppressed and suppressed through language of dying and always needing to repent and surrender over to God. Have I sinned today? My conscience is clear – God is my judge; I do not even judge myself. Why should I repent of something that I don’t know about? What is the point of that? And if I repent simply because I’m “supposed to”, then is it really repentance? What is more important to me is answering those two questions in regards to everything I do. Am I living out of who God has made me to be, and have I projected a false image of what that means by misinterpreting – or completely ignoring – the Scripture? At the end of the day, those two things are truly what it all comes down to. It is all based upon living out of the core of who you now are in Christ – from the new heart – which is to say, to live out of love for your neighbor.

There is no greater love than this: to lay down your life for your friends. Paul even says that “I die daily”. But there is a significant difference between the dying to self when we enter the Kingdom and Paul’s daily death. It was self-sacrifice on behalf of others – HUGE difference. The wisdom of God is manifest in that when I die, or suffer, on behalf of others, life is imparted to them. This “death” is not about dying or suffering, but about serving. It is about taking up ultimate purposes. As Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 1:6, “If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer…”

The cross is experienced in the life of the believer once and for all to die to sins, and taken up again to give our lives as a ransom for many. Death and suffering are never glorified, but rather the life and power that come as a result of sacrifice. If we are focusing upon the death and suffering, then we have left the Christian faith. The beauty of the cross is found in the power over death itself, and not in the “Jesus died for me” alone. Why is it that Jesus’ death moves us? Is it simply because He died while I was still a sinner? Or is there something beyond that? I think that what moves us is the significance of the act, and not the act itself. Through His death, He has brought life. Through His resurrection, He has secured eternal salvation for all who come to Him. Likewise, we take up our crosses and follow Him.

Is it a Goat or a Demon?

Browsing through Leviticus, I came across chapter 17 where God tells the Israelites not to eat blood. Now, it is interesting that in the letter to the Gentiles, the Jerusalem church tells them that this is one of the laws that they cannot break. Circumcision – whatever – but do not eat/drink blood. Before we reach this command in verse 10, we find verses 1-9 speaking of how the people must offer their sacrifices to the Lord at the Tent of Meeting, and not outside of the camp.

But there is something fascinating that happens in verse 7. “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat demons to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for generations to come.”

Wait… What?

What is a goat demon? The Hebrew word is se’irim, which simply means “hairy one”. It is used in 2 Chronicles 11:15 and Isaiah 13:21 as well. Sometimes it is translated as goat. Sometimes it is translated as Satyr. Sometimes it is simply translated as “baboon”.Some have thought that maybe these se’irim are false gods in Egypt that were “blood thirsty”, and God is saying “Don’t you indulge in that.” What in the world is going on here?

There is this weird connection between offering to the goat demon, and eating the blood. God says don’t eat blood, because the life is in the blood. When we examine Acts 15:29, we find that the things mentioned to the Gentile believers to abstain from are the very things that were used at times to worship false gods. Do not eat sacrifices offered to idols. Do not eat the meat of strangled animals. Abstain from sexual immorality. Sandwiched in the middle is this command to not eat blood. So, it seems likely that this is indeed one of those things that would have been performed as a ritual when sacrificing to a certain false deity.

Jump ahead to 1 Corinthians. Paul is talking to these believers, and he says to them “about eating food sacrificed to idols…” that “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” Then, to top it off, Paul says, “If anyone… sees you… eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.” This dialogue is found in 1 Corinthians 8.

Jump ahead in 1 Corinthians to chapter 10. Paul makes the statement to “flee from idolatry”, and then wraps that intimately with communion. Then, if that weren’t confusing enough, he flips the subject around and says, “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean that sacrifices offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”

What just happened? One minute Paul seems to say that it isn’t a big deal to eat of the sacrifices offered to demons – which is deliberately against what the Jerusalem counsel said – and then in chapter 10 it seems like he starts back-peddling. Might I suggest that what is being expressed is bigger than just meat offered to idols? The whole point isn’t about the meat, nor about the idols. The point goes beyond this to a deeper truth. It is about what the communion itself means.

Communion with the Lord is about marriage to God. When the Jewish people would become “engaged” (truthfully, the courtship of the ancient Israelites was much more than what we would call engagement), the father would go with his son to the woman’s home. They would speak to the father of the woman, and they would try to work out a marriage pact. Then, at the end of it all, the son would take a cup and fill it with wine. He would say over the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant. Take and drink of it.” The daughter will then have an option: take the cup and accept marriage with God, or politely decline. When we take of the cup of the Lord, we are committing ourselves to marriage with Him. Jump back to Leviticus 17. Notice the language is about harlotry when the Israelites would offer to this “goat demon”.

We have before us two tables. There is the table of the Lord, which is a covenant between God and His people of marriage with them. Then, there is the table of demons, which is a covenant with death and hell solemnly sworn against the Lord.

To the table of the Lord, we find verses like Genesis 14:18, where Melchizedek brings wine and bread to break with Abraham. We find Psalm 78:19, where God spreads a table in the wilderness for Israel. We find in Mark 8:4, where the disciples ask Jesus, “Where will we get enough bread to feed all these people in this remote place?” In Ezekiel 20:35, the prophet speaks of a time still yet in the future when Israel would be scattered into the wilderness of the nations and sup with God face-to-face. Revelation 12:6 speaks of a time where the woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness to a place that God has prepared to take care of her for 1,260 – another prophecy that is most likely future. It is spoken of this communion that unless you eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, you cannot be His disciple.

Then there is another table. There is a contrast. Psalm 14:4 speaks of evil doers who “devour my people as men eat bread”. Jeremiah 10:25 prophecies of a wrath to be poured out on all the nations and people who “have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him completely and destroyed his homeland.” But the most blatant of all these Scriptures is in Micah 3. “Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my people’s flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh in the pot?”

What is the point? There is somehow a direct connection between taking the meat sacrificed to idols – joining in the table of demons – and devouring the people of the Lord. There are few things that God says He will cut the people off for. This is one. Another is the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly there is taking the mark of the beast. I believe that all three of these are connected deeply and intimately. Notice Matthew 12:28 that Jesus compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God – “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Then, Jesus goes on to express that the strong man – Satan – must be bound in order for the Kingdom of God to come. Then, Jesus goes back to the subject of the Spirit of God by saying those who blaspheme the Spirit of God will not be forgiven. Why? Because the Spirit of God is the one that is casting out the kingdom of darkness. The Spirit is being likened to the kingdom of God. To say that the work of the Spirit is actually the work of Satan is the ultimate affront.

The book of Revelations contrasts the seal of the 144,000 with the mark of the beast. To one, the mark of God is put upon their forehead. To the other, it is the mark of the beast upon the forehead. What is the difference? They who see the antichrist and will actually claim this man is God is to equate the kingdom of God with the kingdom of darkness. It is the same as they who blaspheme the Spirit – which is the same as they who will feast at the table of demons. Look at Luke 11:20. The same verse in Matthew 12 that compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God is said in Luke 11:10 “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

This phrase is found in Exodus 8:19. The Egyptians see the plagues as the “finger of God”. What is happening? The contrast is being made: Egypt or Israel? Goat demons or Jehovah? The Spirit of God or the false miracles performed by the false prophet? Jesus or the Antichrist? The kingdom of God or the kingdom of darkness? Which do you choose?

Greek Philosophy versus Hebrew Bible

In the first couple centuries of this common era, the Christians were severely persecuted. It was with Constantine having a vision that he decided to examine Christianity a little more openly. Unlike what many teach and say, Christianity did not become unified with the Roman culture during the reign of Constantine. It was actually afterward. However, we can still trace it back to Constantine as the man who initiated this "conversion".

Now, when Christianity became the "in" thing, suddenly you have a lot of people claiming Christianity as just another religion. There were some who were genuinely converted. Yet, what we don't see after this point is a clear and direct stream of thought to understand the Hebrew Bible in its own context. I only need to think of men such as Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas to come to these conclusions. It was with the Greek philosophy that these men were taught that they understood the Bible. They read the Old Testament with a bent, and this likewise caused them to read the words of Paul and the other apostles with that same bent. Instead of letting Paul speak for himself, he was then reinterpreted through the mouths of Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

This has caused much damage. For example, when Paul tells us that there is neither slave nor free in Christ, it was the philosophers that argued that slaves are barely even human. Aristotle remarks, "That person is by nature a slave who can belong to another person and who only takes part in thinking by recognizing it, but not by possessing it. Other living beings (animals) cannot recognize thinking; they just obey feelings. However, there is little difference between using slaves and using tame animals: both provide bodily help to do necessary things." Aristotle then proceeds to tell us that a slaves is no more than "a tool of his master". Aristotle even claims that some people "are by nature destined to be ruled, even though they resist it". He thus concludes this thought by saying, "That is why the poets say: 'It is correct that the Greeks rule barbarians", for by nature what is barbarian and what is slave are the same." (Aristotle, Physica, vol. 1; Loeb Classical Library, 1252 b 8. See A.TH van Leeuwen, The Nacht van het Kapitaal, Nijmegen 1984, pp. 182-205)

It was then this Greek philosophy that would be used later in time to validate slavery. Yet, when we hear the historians tell us about slavery, they typically want to speak about how it was Christians that were extreme and difficult to convert to seeing the African Americans as people. Yet, I can't help but ask, if it were in Christianity that these thoughts festered, from where did Christianity gather them? It was in the work of marrying the Greek philosophy with the Hebraic teaching of the Scriptures that such a thought could even possibly be found in Christianity. 

What about women? We find Socrates arguing that women were the "weaker sex" , and claimed that being born a woman was a divine punishment, since being a woman is halfway between being a man and an animal. (Plato, Timaeus, trans. H.D.P. Lee (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965), 42A-C, 90C, 91A) We find also in Socrates' thought that men can do all things better than women (Plato, The Republic, trans. W.H.D. Rouse (New York: Mentor, 1956), 456A). It was Aristotle that taught, "The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying." (Aristotle, Politics, trans. Oxford University, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard McKean, editor (New York: Random House, 1941), 1.1254A, 1259B, 1260A). In this, Aristotle argues that the man is the head over the wife, and that the wife is meant to be ruled over as the soul rules over the body. Aristotle also used this terminology to explain how a master rules over his slave. 

When we read our English versions of the Bible, we need to understand that it is translated from Greek. The original Greek interpretation of those verses is somewhat lost, simply because it is difficult to capture the full intent of the Greek words when translating into any other language. At the same time, we find that there are biases that also get translated into the text. So, when we are taught that the woman is the weaker vessel by Socrates, and we read 1 Peter 3:7 say the same thing, we assume that the apostle is repeating Socrates. Likewise, when we read Paul tell the people in Ephesus that the husband is the head of the wife, we assume naturally that he is reaffirming what Aristotle taught. The thought never even enters our minds that maybe what the apostles were saying was quite contrary to what the philosophers taught. 

One man wrote a book titles, "What Paul Really Said About Women". In this book, he looked at some of major texts that are used to oppress women, and he simply asked the question of whether the apostle Paul was affirming or speaking contrary to the philosophers. In the preface, he writes, "Theoretically, if I took our English translation of his words and translated them back into Greek, my words should be similar to Paul's original words. But when I tried doing this, such was not the case at all! In reality, the words that Paul chose to use imply different ideas from those conveyed by the English words we use to translate his writings. In fact, our English words imply ideas that Paul deliberately avoided! If Paul had wanted to say what we think he said, then he would have chosen quite different words than what he wrote" (John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers 1988), pp xi). 

As I've been looking into this myself, I've begun to realize that the Bible was written by many different authors, and all of them were Jewish. The only man that might not be Jewish descent was Luke. That is debated. Yet, I do ask the question, if 64 books of the Bible were written by Jews, then wouldn't their mindset be a different mindset of the Greek philosophers? The argument can be made that the New Testament writers would have been Hellenized, yet I would like to appeal to Acts 6:1 to make the case that not all of the Jews were Hellenized. Even with this, if some were, then how do we know that Peter and Paul were not? We know because the way that they write is thoroughly Jewish. 

For example, when the Hebraic man debates, he will mention on verse, or only part of the verse, knowing that his audience knows the verse and context. We find this throughout both Paul and Peter's epistles. They reference the verse, but they don't simply mean that verse, they mean the whole context of that verse, and we then see that the context of the verse is actually pointing to this larger picture. Yet, because many of us are not Hebraic, we don't pick up on these things. When we read Paul, we find that he uses a lot of word plays. The reason for this is because the Hebrew Bible also uses a lot of word plays. In fact, the Hebrew language itself is set up in a manner that word plays are necessary. 

So, were the apostles reaffirming that the Greek philosophy was correct? Absolutely not! In no way did they ever agree with the Greek philosophers. Instead, when they wrote to the Greek speaking Hellenized world, they corrected their wrong mentalities. Because we have been too Catholic in following the traditions of the church fathers (which sounds like a rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees) instead of seeking to understand the original intent and heart of God, we have perpetuated wrong philosophy through the generations. Slaves are not less than. Other races are not less than. The Jewish people have not been left out of the promises of God. Women are not under men. Wives are not to be ruled over by their husbands. Teachers are not to teach in lecture form like the Greeks. Discipleship is not about learning information - it is about maturity and character. Authority is not about rule or governing; it is about being a servant. We do not rule over one another like the goyim (Gentiles), but instead those that are in authority are they that serve. In this way, there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, black or white, boss nor employee, clergy nor layman, teacher nor student, fathers nor children, city folk or country folk, or anything else that might divide us. We are all one and the same in Christ - He has broken down that wall of hostility between us. 

That is what is Hebraic. It is the marriage that brings us all to equal status together. We are no longer two, but now have become one. All the things that we have thought would cause someone to be "under" or "less than" us is taken away in the marriage that we partake to become adopted children of God. We are the Bride of Christ, and to be in Christ, we are all now unified and one. No one is over or under - all are made one in Christ. That is the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek. The Greek looks for distinctions between, but the Hebrew sees the marriage and reconciliation of all things. The Greek sees that spirit and flesh fight against one another. The Hebrew sees that in Christ the spirit and flesh marry to become one in harmony together. Every single verse in the Bible teaches us this. Even the ones that speak against it are actually advocating it, because they are spoken in contexts that tell us these views and opinions are wrong. It is an endless study to understand the heart and disposition of God, but I think we need to start here. God is the one who frees the captive and gives liberation to the oppressed. If we are then bringing oppression and bondage to people, we are not in Christ. 

It's not Good to be Alone

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

“This is now 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 mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

In Genesis 2:18, we find the first mention of "not good." Throughout the entirety of Genesis 1, we read about the first day, and God says it is good. The second day, God says it is good. The third day, God says it is good. All the way through to the seventh day, God says, "It is very good." Now we reach the first time that God says, "It is not good..." Isn't it fascinating that the first thing God says is not good is loneliness? 

Notice that God does not say it is sin. It is not sin to be alone, or to feel alone. Loneliness is something that we have all experienced at some time. The Hebrew word is bad (bawd). It has the implication of a branch severed from the tree, a body part disconnected. This is not mere isolation, but a disconnect from the whole. 

God's response to this loneliness is to "make a helper." The Hebrew word is etser, which comes from the root atsar - to surround. Etser means "one who helps," but seems like the implications are companionship and camaraderie, not service or assistance. It is also more than someone to talk to and be around. This suitable helper is supposed to be one that can come alongside and fill out the areas in life that are incomplete. 

We have in verses 19-20 the scene of Adam naming the animals. This has two implications. First, it implies hierarchy. Adam was "over" the animals in that he names them; they don't name themselves. In Daniel 1, Daniel and his three companions are given new names. The king of Babylon does this to show he has ownership over those young men. He named them; he owns them. The second implication is found in what a name represents. The Hebrew word shem (pronounced shame) means character. Adam would have deeply searched the soul of those animals to name them precisely as they are. Their name is the essence of their being. It takes intimacy with that other being in order to name them. You have to know them in their deeps and see what the animal truly is.

We come to verse 21 and God puts Adam in a deep sleep. The Hebrew word is tardemah. It means a trance, or a deep sleep (as if dead). The Greek equivalent is used in Revelation 1 when John sees Jesus and falls down before Him as if dead. Daniel sees a vision in Daniel 10, and falls down on his face into a "deep sleep." This is the same thing. It's the idea of being unconscious or in a coma or something. It makes me think of Paul when he said, "Whether in the body or out of the body, I don't know..." 

This idea of Adam being brought into a deep unconscious slumber, as if dead, is all the more amplified by the verb in the following phrase. Yashen means physical relaxation/being languid, but figuratively implies death. God took a rib out of Adam and from that rib made a woman. She was called such because when Adam awoke, he said, "Woah, man..." (That was a pathetic attempt at a joke). 

In the wording, "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," we actually have an idiom. To understand what this means, it is actually a comparison of bone and flesh. Whereas bone is hard, flesh is soft. Where I am weak, she is strong, but where I am strong, she is weak. We complete one another. This is the helper that Adam needed. This is the kind of relationship that was needed in order to not be "alone." In the case of Adam, it was a wife that was necessary. In the case of many people in our world today, it is not necessarily a wife or a husband. The implications of what it means for them to be a wife or husband is found prominently in the next couple verses.

Before we get to that point, lets further investigate this scene. The Hebrew for rib is tselath. It means side, but can be used in anatomy, architecture, or figuratively. Depending on the context, we would call it a beam, side, rib, plank, etc. It comes from the Hebrew tsala, which means "to limp." Tsala is used in Genesis 32:22-32 when Jacob wrestled the angel and walked away limping. For Adam to be put into a deep sleep, as though dead, and then a rib taken from his side, we're looking at a metaphor for resurrection. Just as Jacob transformed from Jacob to Israel, so Adam is transforming from man to humanity. It was male and female - He made them in God's image. There is something about man and woman uniting to bring forth the image of God.

The Hebrew for woman is ishah; the Hebrew for man being ish. The woman has a hey at the end of ishah. The man has a yod in the middle of ish. When you bring together the yod with the hey, you have yah, which is the name of God. To be truly united, we bring Christ in us to one another, the God that He invested inside of you. When I as a male bring the image of God in me to my wife, and she brings the image of God in her to me, we make a complete yah, and therefore have a three chord strand that is not easily broken. 

To build a relationship upon Christ instead of upon "I love her" is completely different. Notice in verse 23 that Adam never named the woman. There isn't a hierarchy. Adam is not over the woman. Paul notes that the woman was created for man, not visa versa. What's going on here? Paul cannot be saying that man is over the woman. Thus, it must mean that woman is to serve God with man, not as a lesser, but not alone either. The reason for this is because of what I've already mentioned the "bone of my bone" idiom stands for. In the ways of God, He has purposed that woman should serve Him alongside of man. We'll dive into this a little more deeply in a minute.

The word for one used in verse 24 is echad. Echad is used many times in the Old Testament to mean one. It does not mean a multiplicity of ones. I've heard the argument that it is like one bundle of sticks compared to one stick. The truth is, echad would be used to describe both the bundle as well as the single stick. But here is what we do know: Adam and Eve would not have ended up somehow mutating together to become one being. They were still two distinct entities: male and female. Never does Adam become one with Eve in the sense of a merging of the flesh to become one person instead of two. So echad, even though it means one, is being used figuratively to make a point.

When we read in the shema, we read that the word echad is used at the end (the Lord your God is one). Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that we would be one as He and the Father are one. In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul says that this is a mystery that is speaking of Christ and His Church. The very words in Genesis 2:24 are somehow now being related to Christ and His Church. 

I said previously that for Adam, the loneliness was cured by a wife. But for we in the twenty first century, it isn't necessarily marriage that cures loneliness. It comes from two sources, both being related inseparably. We are to be married to Christ, which is to say that we are to be one with Christ. That sounds nice and all, but what does that look like and actually mean? The ironic thing is that this is where the second implication comes in. To be one with Christ is to be one with one another. When we are willing to be intimate with one another, to the degree that you cannot tell where the one begins and the other ends, we are now being united with Christ.

It is beholding in one another's faces that we move from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). We're given a clue in Genesis 2:25 as to what it would mean to be one with one another. They were naked and felt no shame. Nakedness is not simply stripping down. There is a stripping that is not of clothing. There is a nakedness that does not involve nudity. Nakedness is transparency. We read in James 5:16 to confess our faults one to another and to pray for one another. Paul says to carry each other's burdens, for when one part of the Body hurts, the whole Body hurts. That kind of openness of confession to one another, and that kind of love to pray for one another instead of lording over one another is completely other worldly. 

In openness and honesty and nakedness, there was no shame for faults and failures. In all things, man was innocent. Could you imagine what it would be like to be that kind of person to someone else? Are you able to conceive what it would mean to be able to unload your heart to someone, and instead of judging or condemning, they embrace you and say with heartfelt tears, "Me too?" We've all failed in one place, and even if I've never committed adultery, I'm no better than the one who has. I've done things that the adulterer or murderer would never conceive of. The visions in my mind sometimes are so perverted and evil that to confess it would be to expose myself. I'm not a good person.

Yet, it is in the midst of that kind of relationship to one another that we find healing and freedom. We find healing from our sins, and we find innocence because we're not looking to hide or deceive. To be united one to another, so that we are no longer male and female, Jew or Gentile, black or white, slave or free, but are all one in Christ requires that we would be transparent before one another. The cure to loneliness is not to be around other people. The cure to loneliness is confession.

When we're united to a Body of believers that is naked before one another, shame is not felt. Adam and Eve were naked and felt no shame. This kind of innocence has been lost to us, but we can understand it and be a part of it through Christ. Honesty and transparency is being more naked than nudity would require. We don't like the idea of being that open and bare. We like to clothe ourselves and hide behind our fig leaves. It takes the Spirit of Christ itself to even get us to consider opening up and being real. 

The heck of it is that to be united to the Body here and now is actually more than just being united to the Body here and now. There is an unbroken continuum of saints that stretch back to Adam being a son of God, Abel offering a sacrifice that God accepted, Seth's descendants being the first mention of "At that time men began to call upon the name of the Lord", Enoch entering into eternity by faith, and all the other amazing saints that we're in line with throughout all ages. This is called the invisible cloud of witnesses. 

We are interwoven with this invisible cloud. Even when you feel alone, you are not alone. The others that have gone before you are ever and always about you. When we enter into the Body of Christ, we enter an eternal Body that spans from everlasting to everlasting. Before the foundations of the world, Jesus was the eternal Son of God. To enter into His Body is to enter into Him. To enter into Him is to enter into the Triune God. As the Bride of Christ, we are more than human. Divinity and humanity have been married, and in being united one to another, we are actually a fourth aspect of the Godhead. That isn't to say that we are divine as individuals, but to say that the marrying of Israel and the Church, Spirit and flesh, Heaven and Earth, and God and man brings us into an exalted place. We are somehow more than human, and even exalted above the angels, but not on par with Christ.

Just as the woman was created to serve God alongside of man, the Bride of Christ is to rule and reign alongside of Christ. The woman is not less than man, nor is she under man. She is not to be "ruled over", nor is she to be the head of the house. There is no "head" but Christ. When man and woman have been made equal and serve God together - one alongside of the other - we are displaying a mystery of how God has made the Bride to rule and reign with Christ in equality to Christ, and not in subjectivity or "underneath" Christ. 

Oh the depths and riches of our God! The tender mercies that would make man a little lower than the angels, but to be raised up unto Him as Sons and Daughters - co-heirs with Christ. Who is like the Lord? And who has been His counselor? To Him be glory in the Bride, forever and ever, amen.

The Beauty of Holiness

I woke up this morning with a phrase in my heart: the beauty of holiness. Then I opened up my Bible to the Psalm of the day (Psalm 29 for the 29th day of September). "Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of His holiness."

Ultimately, I have very little understanding of this. What I do know is this: the Greeks worshipped the holiness of beauty, whereas the Jews found beauty in holiness. The Greeks found beauty as something to prize and adorn. But how do we define beauty? Is beauty objective?

I can't fathom that beauty would be objective. Actually, I assume that it is not. In the Greek form of beauty, we aren't going to be able to define what beautiful truly is. I like brunettes, but does that mean that blondes are not beautiful? Obviously it would be absurd to say that. But why would it be absurd? In the Greek mindset, beauty is skin deep. Beauty is the ultimate, and never the penultimate. The absolute end to humanity is to strive to be beautiful. Whatever that means, that is one of our primary objectives in life. If we are naturally beautiful, then we have been blessed by the gods.

There is another way to look at it. The Hebrews saw it that there is beauty in holiness. The phrase is actually, "the beauty of holiness." Beauty does not come from appearance, but from substance. A sunset is not beautiful because of the colors, nor the blend of those colors. A sunset is beautiful because of what it is: a reflection of the Divine glory (Psalm 19:1). Peter tells wives to not adorn themselves like the pagans do. You don't need all of that make-up and jewelry. Put on the beauty of holiness. What does that beauty look like?

"Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of old who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear," 1 Peter 3:3-6.

Dear brethren, this is not a text for women only, but for us who are the Bride of Christ as well. It is as much for we men to gain learning of how we ought to obey Christ as it is for wives to obey their husbands. I'm not going to get into that now, and I'll instead focus upon what it says for we who are Christ's Bride. What is the 'beauty of our inner self?' Peter defines it as a gentle and quiet spirit. But gentleness and quietness don't mean timidity, shyness, or weakness. You can be gentle and yet be strong. You can be quiet and yet make powerful statement.

This is the beauty of holiness. In the Old Testament, Divine holiness and beauty are encountered in the sanctuary. But now there is no Temple built with human hands - we are living stones built up together for God. We are the Temple. God dwells in us. The Divine holiness and beauty are not found by going to a sanctuary, but rather found in the day to day interactions between the saints. When we behold one another's faces, we are beholding the very image and glory of God. In my life, and in my character, and in my conduct, I display Christ. When I don't, it is known by all who see me. This is part of what it means to be community. I need the brethren to tell me in love when I am in fault.

"Worship the Lord in the beauty of His holiness." Isn't what is truly being asked here is to worship Him in spirit and truth? We cannot do this in our own strength and ability, but instead through the truth of our relationship unto Him and unto those other believers He has placed around us. We worship in the Spirit that God has sealed us with. Our worship is not our own, but ultimately stimulated by Him. As John puts it, "He has loved us first..."

While I sought to understand the phrase, "the beauty of holiness," I am actually coming to the idea that maybe what I need to understand is beauty. Beauty itself is not something external, but rather internal. The scandal of beauty is that we don't "see" it, but intuit it. Some of the women that I know that are not physically attractive are some of the most beautiful women after you get to know them and their heart. I noticed in high school that the more I got to know the girls I was crushing on, the more attractive they became.

To some, our beauty is actually an affront. The character that we live from is something to despise. Gentleness and quietness are things that the world sees as weak and foolish. They don't see the strength in weakness. They don't see the statement in quietness. They don't see the authority in gentleness. They don't see the beauty of holiness.

We ought to be of a different caliber. Our hearts and lives covet the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. We don't desire the strength of the world, but rather the adoration of our Husband. Christ Jesus is the one we are submissive to. Because He had the servant heart displayed manifestly unto the world, we too display that servant heart. It is grotesque when the Body will then take a servant's heart and use it as a term meaning that we are to abuse our brethren.

The beauty of holiness is the beauty of God with us. It is Christ in us - the hope of glory.