An Argument for Literal 24 Hour Days in Genesis 1-2

INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth article in a series entitled, The Relevancy of The Seventh-Day Sabbath. The series seeks to address issues that have been raised in dialogues concerning the Seventh-day Sabbath doctrine.The prior article in this series, The Relevancy of the Seventh-Day Sabbath: Differing Viewpoints and Long Ages in the Genesis Creation Narrative, introduced three sections, with two of them functioning as introductory elements towards the third. In fact, they form introductory roles to everything that will be assessed from this point on. These sections are: (1) the possibility of the correctness of a differing viewpoint, (2) the realization that there are descriptive and prescriptive verses and passages, and (3) a short introduction to long age interpretation of the days in Genesis.  We now move to the question of whether there exist enough evidence to support a literal reading, as in 24 hour time period, of the Genesis Creation narrative.

Although the majority of Christianity holds to the view that the days in Genesis account for literal 24 hour periods, there are still some that are on the fence concerning evidence that support such an interpretation. It is a crucial issue due to the foundational role that Genesis 1-3 plays within the framework of all of scripture. After all, it is the story of beginnings. The last article prompted questions of what can be found from a face value reading of these chapters. In other words, what can be supported if one comes to the text without the influence of anything but simply what the text says. This is an attempt to address the questions that were raised in response to that article. If one had to make a case for literal days in Genesis 1-2 these things that will be discussed below should be taken in consideration.

Read the rest at my new blog.

Advertisements

And the Worship Wars Go On and On: On Music Genres

In an article entitled “And the Worship Wars Go On and On: Musings on Why Adventist Worship is Changing for the Worst” I presented R&B as part of the change that has happened in Adventist worship. What I didn’t do is present my views on music genres. For those that don’t know I’ve been involved in worship as a musician since I was about 12-13 years of age. This year makes me 34. So that’s about 20+ years of ecclesiastical worship setting experience. This doesn’t make everything I say dogma. My perspective is simply one of many with flaws and all. Take it with a grain of salt.

There will always be differences of opinion on how to do worship. That much is true. The issue is finding that balance that doesn’t conflict with Seventh-day Adventist belief and lifestyle. The either/or approach doesn’t resolve anything. It encourages unnecessary labeling, and in some cases, demonizing of those with opposing viewpoints. The best way to address the various issues in the worship debate is to be honest about what we can be certain of.

Does the Bible specifically address music genres? I don’t think so. If you see it feel free to share. A big part of the worship debate is music genres. To be honest I think that most people who are addressing this issue usually ignore evidence that contradict their perspective. The arguments are un-fair and un-balance. They exaggerate points which they have no evidence for. This happens to everybody, no one is excluded. What makes the difference is those that, from time to time, step back and evaluate their own perspectives.

I’ve watched myself literally transition from one perspective to another base on what I believe the evidence was saying. This article is my current perspective on music genres in the ecclesiastical worship setting. I will not address the individual worship setting for reasons that will become clear as this article progresses.

The music commonly labeled as “gospel” can easily be classified, or associated with, R&B. The older versions of this music genre and others (rock, country, etc.) are easily accepted as proper in many Haitian Adventist congregations. Perhaps at their arrival they may have been an issue but now they are generally accepted as fitting, proper, and holy. Any sign of initial opposition to these older forms of music genres seem to have long disappeared in the fog of time.

However, a change has come. The change is brought about by the usage of modern gospel music which in some cases sound very different then the older ones. This change has brought about much concern and a “back to classical” movement which is equated with “holy music” in the minds of some. We have one side that wants classical hymns and another that wants modern gospel. I’m in the middle. I think the church will do well with a mix.

Most that are in favor of more modern approach to things share my perspective. However, I think there is a reason to be concerned and to be cautious in what we use and how we use it. First let me present my perspective on music genres. I do not find sufficient evidence to support arguments that claim one music genre is better than another. If I’m in error please show me the evidence publicly or send me an email.

I’m well aware of Lucifer’s role as musician in heaven. I believe that is enough to argue that he can do destructive things with music. However, I don’t think that is sufficient to say that a music genre is bad. On what basis can that claim be made? What’s the rubric by which to judge? These questions are often ignored as arguments are made against a particular genre. If we are going to use something to judge one genre it should be used to judge all.

With all that being said here is where I think we would do wise to be careful. With music genres come culture and lifestyle. Ever heard the phrase “Hip Hop culture?” Music genres can promote a lifestyle. It’s not simply about the sound of the music, it’s also about the ideas and feelings it brings to mind. There are many that gain their philosophical perspective on life base on the words of Hip Hop and R&B artists. These artists selected music that they felt merge well with their thoughts.

Is all Hip Hop and R&B negative? No. Should those Hip Hop and R&B that promote Christ and scripture be allowed in the ecclesiastical worship setting? It Depends. Some of you may be shock at this point. The best way to deal with an issue is to think it out all the way through. The allowance of Hip Hop and R&B should be particular to the congregation in question. If it would cause an issue with the conscience of those people in that congregation then it would be a grave error to allow it. However, if all is in acceptance and the theological nature of that church is not affected then why not?

I won’t say that a Hip Hop or R&B song is bad simply because it is Hip Hop or R&B. I will judge it base on what is being said. But this is not where it ends. It is important to understand that music genres have different effects on people. For some hearing Hip Hop and R&B doesn’t create a longing or a pull for street life. For others a distinction can’t be made. This is where it can really be dangerous.

I’m not against Hip Hop Christ-base gospel and the likes. Where I think it can be really dangerous is when consideration is not given to the impact of a music genre on an individual. Just because you are ok with it doesn’t mean it will benefit the entire congregation. Analysis is required to understand the impact of a music genre on your person. We need to think of what is good for the spiritual development of the entire church and not just ourselves.

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please leave a comment below.

The Silent Resurrection

easter celebration white house_0.mediumOnce again it is that time of the year when all the world is a buzz concerning Easter. It is a word that mean different things to different people. For some, it may simply be about bunnies, eggs, and a spectacular meal with family and friends. For others it is described as “the most important festival in the Christian calendar” (BBC). The latter view is held by Christians who accept this time of the year as a celebration period marking the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Its association with the resurrection seems to make it an untouchable topic. To engage in analytical conversations concerning Easter with Christians is to, in a sense, disrupt the rapture-like mood of the season. In fact, this is true of anyone who celebrates something during this time. It seems that the intellect is placed to the side when celebration comes. This author dares to venture in anyway.

There has been many commentaries and discussions on the usage of the word “Easter.” Connections to paganism has been made, especially to Eastre, a saxon goddess associated with spring, and the Zidonian goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5; 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13). Candida Moss,   Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame, not only argues that similarity in pronunciation of words from one language to another and “dying and rising gods” in a variety of religions is insufficient to say that there was borrowing, but that the argument about borrowing shouldn’t be the focus of Christianity (CNN).

The origin of the word is not an issue to me. However, I understand and accept why it can be an issue for others. There is a case to be made for not using words that have historic associations with things that do not represent, or are at odds with, Christianity. This argument is often brushed aside as an ultra-conservative concern. This concern merits considerable attention on the part of those involved in how matters of faith are communicated. Ignoring this concern builds a foundation which will quickly allow usage of words that are more recent and troubling.

The meaning and usage of some words do change over time. The current season is a great example of how true this is. I’ve never heard any celebrant of Easter make a claim of praising a futility goddess. To say they are doing so sub-consciously, in my humble opinion, is also not a credible argument. Oftentimes, in order to prove a point, an argument will be advanced and supported by cliché like statements with no credible analysis to support the claims made. These and tactics such as intentional misrepresentations serve no purpose and should never be use in discussions of such magnitude in Christian circles.

If Easter is the celebration of the bodily resurrection of Christ by those who believe that there was such a thing then why is there not much talk on the resurrection? Sure many will flock to the churches during holy week–Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday–to hear meditations and sermons concerning what took place before and as a result of the crucifixion, but  why is it so quiet outside? Why hasn’t this bold belief concerning the coming to life of a crucified and buried savior not cause believers to spread the message like wildfire?

It seems that the Easter celebration period is not a time for evangelization. Rather, it is a time of reflection for those who are already believers. In other words the way Easter is currently celebrated is deprived of missionary expectations. Christians spend the time thinking and talking about the resurrection with each other. The outside world knows of the celebration but it’s not because Christians are going out to tell them. (This is not to say that there are no Christians talking about the resurrection. If this was the case the rocks would have cried out.) They know it because the media speaks on it. Thus, the resurrection, an event that caused the grieving disciples of Jesus to be strengthen and press on with the mission given, doesn’t seem to be motivational enough to get cultural Christianity–Christians that simply uphold ecclesiastical traditions–up off the couch and out of the pews to explain the story to the outside world.

Perhaps one of the hindrances to this missionary approach is lack of knowledge concerning the resurrection. How can Christians be expected to tell of a story they don’t know much about? This is an opinion and has no tangible support. But, I suspect that if churches were to assign a 100 word essay to their members to describe what happened before and after the crucifixion, they would be surprised. Assuming to know because we have heard it from the lips of another before is not proof that we know. The only way to know if what was heard was accurate is to investigate it from the primary source.

The lack of a major missional buzz from believers is proof that most are not reading and thinking of the resurrection. It is impossible to believe that all of that is being done and it only produce a few passionate souls. Christianity is prayerfully reading and thinking about the resurrection and only a handful feel moved to speak to the world? I think not. What’s likely is that most of us are not praying and reading, and as a result, no fire burns to share what is learned.

As an Adventist, I’m aware that there has always been major conflicts within our ranks concerning what to do with Easter. Where we have found common ground is not in a festival that incorporates imagery from all sorts of origins, but in reflecting on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, we don’t seem to be different from the rest of Christendom when it comes to sharing during this time. We are plagued with the same issue: a resurrection spoken of only at home and the church.

Is it the resurrection that produces silence? No. It’s our lack of understand of and appreciation for the significance of that resurrection. Somehow we have grown cold and are in dire need of a resurrection ourselves. At this time the best way to go about initiating this is to go back to the most important resurrection: that of Jesus Christ. May we study and experience a personal spiritual resurrection so we can talk about the risen one.

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please like, share, and/or leave a comment below.

The Allure of a Foul Mouth: Curse Words and the Church

imgres-3These days it seems like everybody uses curse words. Although those that monitor the usage of these words in the media call for censorship, they allow just the right amount of letters to slip out of the bleep so that the intended audience can have some idea what the word is supposed to be. This type of censorship reflects the attitude of the culture that it’s in. If a large amount of those that live within the culture were bothered by the usage of these words then the censorship committees would be hard-press not to bleep them completely, or better yet, rework the dialogue so that there wouldn’t be a need for bleeping.

The existence of a censoring committee is evidence that a large part of the audience is concerned about words. The committee would not have existed and any attempts to create one would have been strongly protested if a large majority of the audience was fiercely against it. The majority of the audience is not anticensorship and if they are, they are not passionate in their conviction. However, over time it seems that the committee has become more lenient in what it allows. The partial bleeping of certain words and the removal of some from the bleeping list–that is to say they are not curse words, or that they are acceptable curse words–are indications of the progressive leniency of the committee. It is only able to do so because a lenient audience allows it.

In its day to day interactions the audience uses a vast array of curse words. A curse word is used when one wants to degrade another, to express anger when something goes awry, or as an adjective in a sentence. It seems like there is no end to the type of ways curse words can be use. It has gotten to the point that if you don’t curse you stand out as an anomaly. The reason that this is possible is because the underlying drive that pushed not only the explosion of curse word usage, but nudity and the telling of what use to be classified as “private business,” is the self-expression mentality.

The mentality goes beyond simply being yourself. It’s about allowing the world to see who you are without care for what is considered right and wrong, no sense of morality. Everyone reveals things about themselves to some degree. It’s natural. However, this mentality allows for the extreme: the revealing of everything without care for the opinions of anybody else. It allows for rebellion to be glorified and to be viewed as how things ought to be.

What happened over time is that the mentality has also grabbed hold of most of those that it initially was reacting against. So now it’s not really a reaction, its a norm. Part of the norm is the constant use of curse words. It is in this environment that the Christian is found. Lo and behold curse words are heard more than ever on the lips of Jesus’ followers. Is it for the better or the worst? It’s easy to get an answer within the confines of a faith community. But how do young Christians sort their way through this complex environment?

The existence of a faith community entails not only that those within hold to the same beliefs but that those beliefs are reflected in their lifestyles. There are Christians that don’t curse. This does not mean that they’ve never said a curse word. It means that they rarely curse. They hold to the view that using foul language is wrong so they don’t use it. They tend to be more cautious with what they say and therefore choose their words carefully. They are viewed as anomalies for their rejection of the everything goes communication system.

There are Christians that curse. Some of these don’t want to do it and are struggling. Others are not really concern with stopping and feel that it’s completely acceptable if they use some choice words here and there to get their point across. Making the distinction between those that are struggling and those that don’t care is important because Christianity recognizes the inward struggle of the believer between what is right and wrong. Whereas foul language may be an issue for one, it’s not necessarily an issue for another. The one that it is not an issue for shouldn’t feel superior.

The Christian can’t allow cultural environment to alter classification on what is right and wrong without significant thought. Whereas on one hand the culture applauds those that mingle Christian views with itself, it is quick to identify certain behaviors as unfitting for those who profess Christianity. One of those behaviors is cursing. If you were to ask non-Christians: do Christians curse? They would say yes. If you were to ask them: should they be cursing? They would probably answer no.

The reason that a Christian should not curse can’t be base on wether or not the culture thinks so. It should be base on the meaning, the impact, and the intent behind the usage of the word. If this concept is difficult to understand it is because there exist a lack of exposure to biblical teachings on speaking. The teachings speak against the anything goes approach. Perhaps this is the reason why they do not receive sufficient attention. This automatically puts Christians at odds with their surroundings. They are then face with conforming to the biblical stance or going the way of all the earth.

How do we help young Christians? We need to teach them what the Bible says about speaking. Adults need to be aware of their speech. There is a dual effect when teaching and living flow together, They shouldn’t only be told about it, but they should see it. Perhaps part of the failure may be that a large amount of Christian adults are now cursing and so those that come after are simply following in their footsteps. Sometimes what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

The allure of the foul mouth will keep calling. This contra-Christian, rebellious, mystical way of being will attempt to sink its teeth on any Christian who dare to stare longingly. It’s time to show the better way of communicating. One in which countless neglected words in our languages are use to communicate effectively.

 

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please leave a comment below.

And the Worship Wars Go On and On: Musings on Why Adventist Worship is Changing for the Worst

imgresFor some time now Adventism has been engaged in a worship war. Not too long ago it has reached the front steps of Haitian Adventism in North America and made its presence known. The conflict is base on differing views on the styles and methods of liturgy–”a fixed set of ceremonies, words, etc., that are used during public worship in a religion” (Webster). Since Liturgy, by definition, is already established, the arrival of a different one automatically presents an issue. The problem is not necessarily that there is a conflict, but what needs to be addressed in order to resolve the conflict.

Many have set out to resolve the conflict by submitting theological perspectives that they believe support their position. This is often found amongst the proponents of traditional liturgy. They are correct to begin the discussion on the principles of worship that can be obtained through sound biblical exegesis. However, there is a tendency to stretch the meaning of a passage to support pre-supposed assumptions.

 Proponents of emerging liturgy are not well known for basing their stance on biblical perspectives. Those that do claim a biblical stance seem to also overstate their arguments like their counterparts. It almost seems as if the argument is base solely on the need for something different.

Clearly these are over-generalized categorizations of the two groups. Both sides do contain individuals who have substantial arguments for their positions. However, there is no end in sight to the war. Instead, an augmentation is on the horizon. At this juncture I’ve decided to voice my opinion concerning why this conversation between the two opposing sides is necessary and what I believe is the cause behind the rise of the emerging liturgy, new way of doing corporate worship. My focus will be on new music genres into the divine worship hour(s).

The very thought of speaking about the way corporate worship is done can put a damper on things. The assumption behind the dropping of countenances is that the discussion will result in the stoppage of the emerging liturgy or modification of the traditional. Many have found it comfortable to take a neutral position where the emerging and the traditional can function together in the same place. In terms of the music some have argued that the best way to deal with the issue is by mixing the traditional with the new.

This laissez-faire stance is problematic. This is not said concerning their stance but in their handling of a major dividing issue. The worship wars can cause division in congregations. Anything that escalate to the point of potential division should face a great deal of scrutiny by all that are involved. The present church should not only be concerned about itself but also the impact that its decisions will have on how future generations respond.

I don/t believe that the new way of doing worship has it’s origin within Adventism. This is not to say that it never occurred in our past or that there weren’t individuals within our midst who wanted to do so. What I am saying is that in recent North American Haitian Adventism context the reason behind the emerging liturgy is a probably a desire by our young people (millennials) to have a worship setting like unto that of Protestantism. This is reinforced by the desire of some adults in the church who found the new way appealing.

We are getting the way we do worship from those with a completely different theological system then we have. What is motivating the change? Is it discoveries concerning God in scripture or is it simply base on what is seen? Protestant theology not only affects the words in their songs but also their music. For example a church that believes in speaking unintelligible tongues will have worship with music that reflects and/or allows for this.

It is only logical that if we are going to borrow from them that we are true with ourselves concerning why we are borrowing from them. Man is unable to see the heart but God knows if the borrower is doing so base on the conviction that the song is pointing to God or simply the “feel-good” affect of the song. Throwing God’s name in it doesn’t make it a godly song. It also doesn’t help that most of the singers that are being copied look like R&B artists.

Which brings me to my next point: looks like R&B, sounds like R&B, is R&B? I think this is a fair conclusion. The emerging liturgy in Protestantism seems to mimic the music and stage presence of R&B. It is mixing pop culture with Christianity. In this mixing the main focus seems to be on individual expression, excitement, emotionalism, and performance. This is a scary way of doing worship. Often times the emphasis seems to be on fun. Worship is not about how much fun we can have or how good we can feel.

By taking R&B styling and bringing it inside the church we participate in the secularization of corporate worship. This then lowers the standards of individual worshippers in their beliefs about how to react to secular society. Allowing our youths to be expose to this will eventually leave us with a generation that is very lax on principles. What kind of church will they have if we don’t instruct them properly?

I do admit that there are elements in my musing that are not altogether correct. For instance, my comments on how the new worship style got in Haitian Adventism is purely a guess. However, it is here and needs to be scrutinize. I do believe that we are borrowing from Protestantism, and that part of the reason it is appealing to us is that we are also becoming secularized.

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please leave a comment below.

Immediate Pre-Law Preparations in Exodus 19

Note: The first part of this article, Immediate Pre-law Preparations in Exodus 19, Part 1, was posted on February 9. This article contains both the first part and the rest of the author’s presentation of the so-called “immediate pre-law preparations.” This study is at its’ genesis stage and is not intended to be devotional. Points made here will be expanded at some other time.

INTRODUCTION

Lesson six of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Glimpses of Our God,[1] is entitled “God the Lawgiver.”[2] The memory text is taken from the book of Isaiah: “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us” (Isa. 33:22, NKJV). The objective of the lesson is to “look at the law and, by default, the Lawgiver.” The idea behind this objective is that “the law reveals the character of the lawgiver.” Thus, you can’t take one without the other. Seventh-day Adventists have always argued that “the law is a transcript of God’s character.” This lesson falls in line with that understanding.[3]

Sunday’s lesson, “The Law at Sinai”, is an investigation of Ex. 19:18, 19; 20:18; Deut. 5:22; Heb. 12:21; and Rom. 7:8-13. The Old Testament (OT) passages are used so that students may be able to describe God’s physical manifestation at Sinai at the giving of the law, and the Israelites response. Hebrews 12:21 is also a reference to the giving of the law in the OT. Romans 7 is brought in to explain the role of the law.

“The Law at Sinai” seems ill-titled. It doesn’t investigate the law itself. Rather, it investigates the reaction of the Israelites to God’s presence prior to the giving of the law (Ex. 19:18, 19), their post-law hearing reaction (Ex. 20:18, Deut. 5:22, and Heb. 12:21), and the role of the law (Rom. 7:8-13). In other words, it skips the law altogether. At the least, it should have been titled, “Reactions to the Law at Sinai.” Although that title still doesn’t include what is being addressed by Paul in Romans 7. (Too much fuss shouldn’t be made over titles.) This article addresses what I refer to as “the pre-law preparations” in Exodus 19.

LOCATION

The giving of the law to Israel took place in the midbar sinay (“wilderness of Sinai”). Sinay means “thorny.” Some scholars believe that this is the plain of er-Raha. It is a “bush-studded,” 2 miles long and ½ mi wide area, surrounded by mountains. Of course, one particular mountain, rising from the southeast of the area, is believed to be the actual mountain on which God descended and Moses received the tablets. Three days are given for when it is believed that the Israelites made it to Sinay: (1) the first day of Sivan [name of the third month—Jewish tradition supports this], (2) the 14th day of the month, or (3) the 15th.[4]

IMMEDIATE PRE-LAW PREPARATIONS

Prior to the giving of the law preparation was necessary. Chapter 19 may be viewed as the preparation chapter. (Some may wish to argue that Israel’s experience since God began their deliverance out of the hands of Pharaoh should be viewed as, what I’m “the pre-law preparations.” I have no quarrels with that). In fact, to be more precise, we may state that chapter 19 contains “immediate pre-law preparations.” The chapter immediately following contains the audible stating of the law by God Himself. I have divided the pre-law preparations into two sections: Immediate Pre-law Prep. 1 and Immediate Pre-law Prep. 2.

For the purpose of clarification, let me state exactly what I mean by “immediate pre-law preparations.” I’m using the title to refer to statements that comes prior to the giving of the law that calls for those who will receive the law to say, believe, or do something. I use the term “immediate” for Exodus 19 because it is the chapter that precedes the giving of the ten commandments.

Immediate Pre-Law Prep. 1

Pre-law prep. 1 refers to Exodus 19:3-8. In the selected verses, God’s first recorded communication to the people of Israel after their arrival at Sinay contains three distinct sections: (1) God’s stating of His act of deliverance [Ex. 19:4], (2) His desire for the obeying of the law (His voice) and keeping of the covenant [19:5a, b], and (3) what He will do in response to their obedience [19:5c. 6].

The first one is a declaration of what He has done for them in terms of their former status as slaves: “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Ex. 19:4).[5] Thus, God not only calls them to recall His acts in Egypt, but also their post-Egyptian experience, which at this point, consists of their journey from Egypt to Sinay, from bondage to Himself.

The purpose of having them recall God’s deliverance and providence seems to be design to establish God’s intent to treat them as a special people prior to them promising any type of obedience. Since He is now promising them that they will be His “treasured possession,” “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” they knew that He would do it since He brought them to where they were, to Himself.

Whether one agree with this analysis or not, it still remains that in this section we have a promise to the people of Israel concerning their obedience to the law. Where some may take issue is the fact that Exodus 19:5 doesn’t ask for obedience to the law, but to God’s “voice.” This is correct. However, since the law is audibly stated in Exodus 20, it is to be included  as what is “heard” coming from God. Thus, pre-law prep. 1 one calls for the obeying of God’s voice and the keeping of the covenant.

Response to Pre-Law Prep. 1

Exodus 19:7 states that Moses presented God’s promise to “the elders.” However, the next verse states that “the people all responded together” (19:8). How the news got from the elders to the people is not explained. Perhaps Moses called the elders first and then they helped him inform the people concerning the proposal. No matter how it happened, the important point is that the people agreed. Agreeing to this first proposal wasn’t the only thing that God needed them to do prior to the giving of the ten commandments.

Immediate Pre-Law Prep. 2

Immediate pre-law prep. 2 is found in Exodus 19:10-15. Here, God commands that the people be “consecrated” and that they should wash their clothes prior to the meeting. They were to abstain from sexual activities. They are also told that they shouldn’t touch the mountain itself during the meeting. Not only were those that touch the mountain were to be stone and/or shot with arrows, but it seems that killing them by projectiles was to prevent others from being killed by touching them. In other words, if you touch those who touch the mountain, whatever befalls them would befall those that touch them.

This pre-law prep seems to be geared towards preparing the people for meeting God, rather than just the hearing of the law itself. The people were about to come face to face with Yahweh and therefore had to be prepared for that encounter. This type of preparation may not have been asked for if the law was to be given to the people by a person, rather than directly from God Himself. This may make some to consider pre-law prep. 2 as being a bit indirect (or secondary).

Response to Pre-Law Prep 2.

The people were consecrated and they washed their clothes. It can be said that there is further evidence from silence. If the people weren’t consecrated then God would have “break out against them” (Ex. 19:22). However, He didn’t. This implies that they were indeed, truly consecrated, their clothes were washed, and they had abstain from sexual activities.


[1] Clifford R. Goldstein, ed., “Glimpses of Our God,” Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press 2012)

[2] Goldstein, 46.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series), S. Ex 19:2

[5] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scriptures in this article are taken from the New International Version.

Whitney Houston: A Eulogy

In the gospel According to Matthew, Jesus says, “you are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16).[1]

This saying places emphasis on identity and uniqueness. A disciple is unique because of who he is. The identity of a disciple makes him unique. In this case, Jesus identifies a disciple as a light-bearer. What makes a light-bearer unique is what he is contrasted against, darkness. By saying “you are the light,” Jesus should be understood to be implying that there is darkness all around and that the disciple is not like that darkness. Without darkness, it wouldn’t matter if the lamp is placed “under a bowl.”

The light-bearer, who now knows who he is, is told to “let your light shine before men” (5:16). Knowledge of identity precedes that of mission (in this case). Having to be who he is in an environment that is not conducive to who he is, is what the light-bearer is told to do. If he is indeed who he claims to be, then he will be who he is, for he can’t be anything else.

A light-bearer does “good deeds” that are not intended towards glorifying himself, but his “Father in heaven.” This final part of the saying is truly the ultimate purpose of a light-bearer’s existence: glorifying God. Indeed, humanity finds true self-fulfillment in a life that brings praise to the “Father in heaven.” Thus, a light-bearer, when his entire life is viewed as a whole, will ultimately reflect the God whose light he bears.

Whitney Houston was a star, a light that stood out against others that surrounded her, a city on a hill. And she still is all that. Although she now sleeps the sleep of the dead her contribution to this world, especially in music, is colossal. No one can ignore the elephant in the room. The world is full of singers, but none of them sounds like Whitney.

Whitney is missed by her family and close friends. They are the ones who are primarily affected by her death. They are the ones who have watched her grow up to be the star that she is today. Before the lights were fixated on her, they were the ones that first saw someone of worth. At this time, they are in pain. They are not now concerned with what legacy she leaves behind (although they will do their best to make sure that she is remembered as positively as possible). They are grieving over the loss of Whitney, the person.

They are not the only ones that are grieving. Fans of Whitney are grieving also. Fans are grieving over the loss of someone they admire; sing songs recorded by; and watched performances by. They are in disbelief. They weren’t ready for this type of news. For them, it came like a “bat out of hell.” They are forced to say goodbye to a shining light they believe is gone too soon. They are left only with CDs, pictures, and videos of the starlet in all her glory, not enough for hearts that are broken.

Undoubtedly, in Whitney’s official eulogy there will be great praise for what she has accomplished in over 40 years of life. It is a feat that many of will never attain to, let alone aspire to do so. She will be lifted up in grand sermonic discourses describing her towering and iconic status. So great will the praises be that, if it was possible, they would usher Whitney into the gates of heaven—a place she certainly be said to be in. Truly, her family will be proud. But what kind of light was Whitney? Did she leave behind a legacy that praises the “Father in heaven”?

To claim to have an answer to that question would be pompous on my part. Some may be offended that one would even ask such a thing. Only God truly knows whether or not she brought glory to His name. All that can be done now by we who are still living is evaluation of our own lives in an attempt to sort out whether we are living a life that praises God. It is much better to make assessments of ourselves than others. Although we would never admit to this, we tend to make great mistakes when it comes to the latter.

The death of such a young star reminds us that we cannot continue to exist forever. At some point, this life will come to an end, one way or another. Before it does, however, we can take a deeper look at (1) who we are, (2) what we have done and are doing, and (3) who that did and is glorifying: God or the other. The death of Whitney forces us to reflect collectively, as those who are “destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

As we look over Whitney’s life, let us look at ours and sort out what type of lights are we. The heights that can be obtain means nothing if our “Father in heaven” is not praised. That is truly what we were born to do. Although Whitney is resting in peace, we will not be able to have any peace now unless we are living to what we are destined to be.


[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scriptures in this article are taken from the New International Version.