It's a boy

So, Nicole and I found out that we're having a boy today!

  

Married in the Eyes of God

Church today was about love, but the first verse that the speaker quoted was the 2nd 1/2 of Genesis 3:6 - "...she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (NIV) and it caught my attention for an almost unrelated reason. By the way, "she" in this verse is Eve and the "husband" is Adam.  

Recently, because my wife and I were not married by a pastor but an ordinary man who was licensed to perform civil marriages, there is a person who has told us that although they're happy for us, they don't believe that we are married in the eyes of God. My first reaction to such a claim is that it is ridiculous. 

But, what if I'm wrong? What if that person is right and my wife and I aren't "living right" in God's eyes (even though we're trying to save up $10,000 for a real wedding by Sept. 18, 2010)?  

Well, the reason Gen. 3:6 caught my attention on this subject is because Adam was referred to as Eve's husband. That struck me as odd. In society today (and for many many many years) a marriage was performed. It is usually performed by a pastor (historically it is performed by a religious figure of some sort), but there was (as far back as we know) someone who pronounced the two "married". But, here...who was there to marry Adam and Eve? The Bible certainly does not mention anywhere of Adam being pronounced Eve's husband or visa versa. So, I decided to look up the words "marriage", "married", "bride", and "bridegroom" in the Bible and see what I found:

1. Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and *be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." *"be joined" is literally translated "cling". This verse was listed as the definition of marriage in the concordance of my Bible.
2. Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:6-8 - Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24 when He was asked if divorce was permissible in God's eyes, then continues to say, "what God has joined together, let not man separate."
3. Ephesians 5:31 - Here Paul quotes Gen 2:24 as the definition of marriage while addressing issues of divorce and husbands and wives submitting to each other.

And there were quite a few other verses that came up when searching for "bride", "bridegroom", "marriage", and "married" but none of them had anything to do with the definition of marriage. They were all talking about marriage and sexual immorality, etc. But, not in this context - usually in the context of homosexuality or adultery/fornication.  

But...the lack of any supplementary definitions of marriage besides Gen 2:24 actually answers the question of ceremony or not, or pastor or non-religious figure. My answer is now confirmed that it is NOT necessary to be married by a priest to be married in the eyes of God. Further, it is now my opinion that a ceremony isn't necessary at all, either. There are some who, based on Gen. 2:24 believe that all that is necessary for two people to be married "in God's eyes" is for them to have sexual intercourse and be living together. I don't agree with this either. I believe that where Gen 2:24 says that a man will be joined or cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh it is, of course referring to sex, but I also think it is talking about the life long commitment the two make too each other. Just like today how there are two parts to a legally binding contract:

1. The most obvious part - the written: the wording of the contract, written down on paper, with the signatures of everyone involved, etc.
2. The less obvious part - a meeting of the minds: all parties involved in a contract MUST all have the same intellectual understanding of the contract being signed. If any of it is unclear or one party interprets the contract one way and the other party another way, the contract is not legally binding. Think about it: it can't be.

So a marriage, I believe, has two parts:

1. The physical and/or sexual joining of a man and woman (notice I did not say man and man or woman and woman. According to Gen 2:24, marriage is between a man and woman, and according to Leviticus 20:13 homosexuality is an abomination - but also notice that Jesus, in the New Testament does not condemn the homosexual, but the homosexuality itself...not the person, but the action...very important)
2. The mutual understanding of the two involved in the marriage that they are married and committed to a life-long joining of their lives, making what was separate into one.

Much to my relief, I am able to say with confidence that not only are Nicole and I married by law and emotionally, we are also married in the eyes of God based on His definition of marriage. Not that I had any doubt, to be honest.

How DO We Build a Relationship With God, Anyway?

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” 

So, I read the study note (because I have always loved this verse in the Bible. It rings in my mind like music in my ears) and the study note says that based on the context of the word “with” in the original language this verse was written in, this verse indicates a “face-to-face relationship”. Meaning the Word was equal to God and personified. 

[And here it is…drumroll, please….] The Word is a Person  

So I looked up the cross-referenced verses:

1.       Col. 1:17 – “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
                 a.       “He” refers to Jesus
                 b.      Note that this is written in the present but refers to the past… He is before all                                  things

2.       1 John 1:1-2 – “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled, concerning the Word of life – the life was [here is a sort of definition of what the “Word of life was/is] manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us”

a.       So this is another reference to the Word as a proper noun – as a person

b.      1 John 1:1-4 study note – “…these verses emphasize the personal experience of the apostles with the incarnate Word. – [underlines and emphasis added by me in all cases]

c.       So, a personal experience; the incarnate Word – the Word is a Person and in context here, also refers to Jesus

3.       John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

a.       In the proper context of the original language, you can replace the word “became” before flesh with the phrase “took on”.

b.      The Person (or Being) of the Word (which, by the way is full of grace and truth) took to Himself physical flesh and became human in appearance – so, His regular/normal/natural appearance, if you will, is not that of a human?

4.       Rev. 19:13 – “He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called ‘The Word of God’. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.”

a.       [side note: notice how heaven is never a proper noun in the Bible…is heaven really a place?]

b.      He = Jesus = The Word of God = God

c.       And who, but a King or Prince, do armies follow on horse-back as like in this image?

 There were other verses my Bible cross-referenced, but the above were the most pertinent.

So this helps guide me to an answer to a question that has bugged me for a long time: How do we really develop a relationship with God through Jesus? It’s an answer that everyone uses but I’ve never truly understood. But now it makes sense in a deep and meaningful way: You develop a relationship with God through Jesus by spending time with the Word – not the word, but the Word, if that makes sense. And the Word has two parts – the written: the Bible; and the “Spoken”: that which the Holy Spirit reveals to you/your heart in prayer.

 And He was there from before there was nothing – before nothing existed He was there with God and He is God.

  

First time since February

Today, Nicole and I went to church together. It was, I think, the first time I've been to church since going with Nicole to Shoreline (in Monterey, CA). I just realized how similar the name of the church we went to today is to Shorline: Seacoast.

It is an interesting church. You can tell, almost right away that they differentiate themselves from other churches just by going to their website - Seacoast - because instead of calling the churches they have in different cities churches, they call them "campuses". They seem to have a focus on community service - which I like - and overseas missions - which I've always wanted to get into, but could never pull the money together. 

And, even though there were only about 50 to 60 people in the second Sunday morning service (2nd of 2), I would not call this a small church. Because - and this is what made this church the most unique to me - all of the Seacoast campuses seem to be connected under one pastor. Each campus has it's own pastor (Pastor Larry Maio in Columbia) to do some preaching, counseling, praying, administration stuff, etc., but it is the senior pastor, Pastor Greg Surratt located in Mt. Pleasant, SC, who delivers the Sunday message/sermon (whichever you prefer to call it) via video. I am guessing that he is in the church he planted in Mt. Pleasant and we are watching him on a large movie theater sized screen in Columbia. 

I felt that it might seem a little less personal (not being able to interact with the senior pastor if you wanted/needed to), but at the same time, I could feel a larger sense of unity. It might be the begining of one solution to so much separation within the Church in America. There are too many churches and not enough Church going on. But, I am still not 100% sure how I feel about it, but my first impression is that it's a good thing.

So today, Pastor Greg talked about God the "Father". Nicole and I obviously jumped into the middle of a somewhat on-going miniseries in Isaiah. But, the pastor talked about how Isaiah described God as being the "Everlasting Father" (Is. 9:6-7). The message was based on the thought that we view God in His role as Father based on our relationship with and how we view our earthly fathers. He described 4 mostly negative and 1 positive fathering style/category that most fathers fall into and how most people view God and their relationship with and to Him based on which category their father fell under. 

But, I didn't like the wording of the translation used for one of the verses in the sermon - I think it was The Living Bible (TLB) translation of Is. 49:15: 

"Can a mother forget her little child and not have a love for her own son? Yet even if that should be, I will not forget you." (emphasis mine)

But, the New King James Version (NKJV) makes a better contrast, I think:

"Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you." (emphasis mine)

I think the wording/translation of a verse is very important, because even though these two translations seem so close together, they give a slightly different feeling about the power and reality of God's permanence in the lives of His children. The TLB says that a mother may or may not forget her own children but doesn't drive it home as well or make it as poignant as the NKJV when it says that even a mother will surely forget her own children. To us that is an unthinkable thing for a mother to abandon or forsake her children, but the Bible says that mothers will forsake their children, but God will never forsake you. 

But, this sermon didn't tell me something about my dad that I didn't already know - my dad, of the given categories, definitely falls into the 1 positive one. But the sermon did 2 other things:

1. Reminded me that even though I've put God on the back burner, He hasn't put me on the back burner or forgotten about me, and
2. God spoke to me through this sermon about parenting. I was thinking about my dad, and writing a note on the "sermon notes" page they put in the little church flyer thing that my dad has been a good dad. But, the word that actually came to mind was "Steward". My dad has been a good steward. Being a parent (as Nicole and I are about to be learning first-hand) is - besides the notion of having your own kids - to be a steward of His kids. Children truely are a blessing, and in reality they are just on loan. One day they are going to go home, and in what condition has mostly to do with how we, as parents, steward what God has blessed us with. It is our responsability, and our honor to be good stewards of that which God has trusted us with.