Word Study: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me

It's time again to do another short word study to gain a deeper insight into the message of the Bible.

What is "God?"

The word "God" in the first of the Ten Commandments is the Hebrew word Elohim, defined here at BlueLetterBible.com, together with a list of the instances where it is used in the Old Testament. There is also a word study on that site here. Elohim is a plural word (-im is the plural ending to words in Hebrew), and always refers to the Trinity when used of God in the Bible. The plural always takes a singular noun when referring to God, also, driving home the point of the existence of the Trinity by grammatical evidence. Likewise, the singular word El is used of the individual persons of the Trinity, the Father, Spirit and Son, as shown in the BLB word study linked.

I briefly touched on the meaning of Elohim in a previous blog post. The word connotes strength and when referring to humans can be understood to mean "mighty ones," powerful people whom even in Modern English could be symbolically spoken of as "gods among men," without anything being lost in translation. The word is translated in various places as 'judges' or 'rulers'

Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods

What does this mean?

Let's look at it grammatically. 'other gods' implies a comparison rather than a contrast with God. The 'other gods' are clearly presented as false gods, in context of the Ten Commandments, but the word Baalim (a catch-all term for false gods), the plural form of Baal, which means "lord" and was the primary [implied false] deity of the Canaanites, as defined here, was not used, since that would imply that God was a false god, grammatically speaking, because of the usage of "other." 

Why is this significant?

I think it's because if God had inspired Exodus 20:3 to read "thou shalt have no false gods before me," then there would undoubtedly have been those who would have claimed, "God, we don't believe in any false gods [baalim], we simply worship 'true' gods [elohim] in addition to you; is that so wrong?" By not merely forbidding "false gods," but forbidding the worship of any conceivable deity of any kind God closes all loopholes and makes no excuses possible.

Application

Yet, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox today put church "saints" [elohim*] before God and worship them.

Others put charismatic figures such as politicians, celebrities, etc as their [elohim] in their life, which they worship in the sense that worship consists of respecting and obeying your god, desiring to please your god, and looking to your god for guidance and hope in accomplishing a solution to whatever problem you're praying to them for their aid in fixing.

And most of the rest think so highly of themselves because of persistent self-esteem campaigns and the Gospel of The Inherent Goodness of Man that they are their own elohim, the highest ruler and authority in their life to which they give deference above all other earthly and heavenly authorities.

God says that no matter what sort of "mighty one" you can conjure up, whether you recognize it as a "false god" or not, it is wrong of you. Whatever your alternate object of worship, it is not worthy and you should cast it aside and worship only God, Elohim-Elyon, the Most High God. 

The Call of the Individual

What is your idol today? We all have temptations. Even if you have no person or earth system that you put your faith in for deliverance, perhaps your tendency is like mine, the most simple kind: that subtle pull of your inclination to worship self, to consider your own wants first and to be the final arbiter of what course of action you will take. No matter how often you've mentally handed the reins over to God and repented of trying to be your own God, there are always improvements to be made. For the Christian believer, this is part of sanctification. And if you are not Christian--if you have never yet stopped serving "other gods [elohim]"--or if you are not sure where you stand, may I encourage you to seek to be saved? The same website I've been utilizing for this post has a concise and clear explanation of what it is your soul needs, even though it's our natural tendency to do just the opposite. I encourage you to give it a read: How to Know God.

~ Rak Chazak

* in context of this blog post. Not to be confused with the actual old testament word for saint, Qaddiysh

Can't Get Enough

I doubt it will be the case, but I've wondered about whether heaven will be nothing more than an eternal worship service, with music and song and dance, just praising God forever. While I can't imagine what it would be like, I can understand how it could be. One of the fascinating things with reading the Bible and learning theology is that the more you read and listen, the more you want to. It becomes a source of energy. It is literally pleasing and satisfying to hear someone talk about the Gospel, or to talk about it yourself. It's impossible to hold it back. Like trying to stop a faucet with your hands, or for that matter a lightbulb, it just keeps overflowing; it just keeps shining through. You can't hold back the Gospel. You can't resist talking about it and you love to hear it again and again. It never gets old. 

I first got introduced to RW Glenn via the DVD "The Biggest Question," that I got from some people who were partnering with Wretched to get them handed out. Now I ran into a youtube video of him explaining the Gospel. I love hearing the slightly different ways that each theologian presents it. Consider the prior piece from John MacArthur that I posted a few weeks ago. What I really like about RW Glenn is his conversational style. Plus, he's a youngster by comparison to the older preachers and like me, uses exaggerated hand gestures while talking. :)

It's the same Gospel, but every presentation is nuanced based on the personality of the speaker. And sometimes the audience, which you've gotta take into consideration.

I love it. 

And because of this feeling of being drawn to hear it constantly, I think I can understand how heaven could be an eternal 'worship-party.' If it did turn out that standing and singing was 'all there is' to heaven, I can accept that and I would be content.

It's not that I'm satisfied with little. I'm satisfied with few things. God is only one "thing," and yet He is so important, He is everything. It's not hard to be satisfied with everything. I hope I've offered some perspective here tonight.

If you're not a Christian -- just watch the video. And if you're a Christian, definitely watch the video. 

~ Rak Chazak

Is It A Religious Cult? Introduction.

This will be my first experiment with a "jump break," to keep the front page uncluttered.

Edit: I put a jump break at the top of the list, but it doesn't appear to be working. I'm sort of new to Blogger, so if anyone minds explaining how to make it work, please leave a comment. Otherwise, it's no big deal. It's not terribly clutter-y without it.

After the jump, you'll simply find a long list of things that characterize religious cults. It's a general list, and doesn't give any examples, as a result. So the information can be used and applied to any organization for the purpose of determining, "are they a cult?" Examples of organizations you might enjoy evaluating with the help of the list below would be political organizations, media groups, various advocacy organizations, religious groups, etc and etc. What I intend to do is to leave this here for now, and later on, I'm thinking about uploading an article to the effect "Is the Democratic Party a Religious Cult?" Now THAT is sure to ruffle some feathers! But I believe it will also be a gold mine for overjoyed conservatives to link to, assuming I write it well enough and it gets spread throughout social media, to a large enough audience.

As a clarifying note, just because something displays characteristics coinciding with the points given does not mean it is a cult, automatically. But organizations that are cults will have characteristics in common with the points listed. It's an issue of correlation.

Have fun using it for your own personal benefit! I should mention that the first two parts of the list were gotten from different sites, which I've since forgotten--so that content is not totally original. The third part is my own contribution.

At the bottom, I've given a few examples for fun. Enjoy!

The Wretched Podcast

Once or twice weekly, I open up my computer and go to hit up my favorite websites to see what's been added in the past several days. One of these websites happens to be Wretched Radio, hosted by Todd Friel, a guy who used to be a pastor, discovered he was a false convert, and now is a true convert who spends his time combating various heresies through the medium of the air waves. Being an unemployed almost-grad, I don't have the privilege to watch his show on t.v. or to subscribe online, but that's okay, because there are free goodies to be found there anyway.

Specifically, the 15-minute excerpt of the 2-hour daily radio show is something I've made a habit of watching. Here's the link to this Tuesday's episode: 

The Wretched Segment of the Day -- March 12, 2013

Now I'm going to proceed to give my two main thoughts on this episode.

1. They start out by mocking (a valid method of correction if done right) what I guess could be labeled as "mainstream Christian pop," by playing sections of the lyrics of popular songs that don't hold up to theological scrutiny. I recognized one of them from my own music album, so this hit home a bit for myself as well.

I didn't recognize all the songs, though "we say yes lord, yes lord, yes yes lord" were the lyrics on one, "I am a friend of God (x3), He calls me friend" was another, and then there was the disturbingly-too-much-like-a-romance-song "I love the way you hold me, whoa oh oh oh oh oh" that I heard on the radio a year or so ago. Catchy tunes, no doubt. But they hardly compare to these examples:

"Because the sinless Savior died, my sinful soul is counted free; for God the Just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me" -- The old worship hymn, Before the Throne of God Above

"I will not boast in any thing, not gifts nor power nor wisdom; but I will boast in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection." -- The hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us

Notice a difference in terms of the theological 'meatiness' of the lyrics? Mmh hmm.

Mockery is supposed to be embarrassing when you realize that you or something you like is being mocked. That's how it motivates you to change your behavior if you're in the wrong. Assuming, of course, that the mockery is given in love and not intended to hurt more than your feelings. And I think Todd's mockery of these songs is well-intentioned, and effective.

That's why it was awkward for me to again notice that another one of the songs he mocked was the Newsboys rendition of "God's Not dead." Consider the lyrics: 

"My God's not dead He's surely alive
He's living on the inside
Roaring like a lion
He's roaring, roaring
Roaring like a lion (2x)"

Catchy tune, and it gets you pumped to blast it through your car speakers, but it doesn't have a solid theological message. At best, its message is emotional. So I acknowledge Todd's criticism, but I'll keep this one song in my album, and here's why:

I don't think Todd is saying that this music is evil or should not be listened to. I believe the concern is that when songs with watered-down lyrics like these make up the vast majority of music played over the radio, and when there are comparatively very few songs that exposit a Biblical truth, then those who are listening to this music are not being fed with good "soul food," if you will. They're getting candy for three meals a day and no vegetables. It can sure taste sweet to your ears to hear MercyMe sing "you're beautiful" to the tune of delightful guitar music, but if all you hear is about you and not about God, over time you'll develop a jaded impression. MercyMe's other song, "All of Creation" does more to exposit the change in the relationship we have with the Father because of the Cross. I have both in my music library. Some music just sounds good, and you're allowed to get your "fix" every once in a while. But our evaluation of whether Christian music is good Christian music should not be based on how it sounds, but on what it says. I think this is Todd's big push.

I happen to have a lot of "theologically meaty" songs in my collection, and hence I haven't been negatively affected by vague lyrics. It's a matter of balance, I believe. You can listen to "Draw Me Close To You" by Nicole Nordeman, which is a wonderful song and helps to emphasize that God should be all we want, and nothing else, but make sure to complement it with a song like "Children of God" by Third Day. Just like with real food, you've got to eat a balanced and healthy meal or you'll get sick to your stomach.

So ask yourself, is most of what I listen to wishy washy emotional music? Or do I listen to enough  solidly theological music ("Manifesto" by City Harmonic, for example) that I can listen to the other stuff without also washing down my own personal theology? 

As a general rule, consider: if a song can be sung by a muslim, mormon, catholic, Jew and jehovah's witness, as well as an 'Evangelical Christian,' then that music is not Christian music. It's far too vague to qualify. That doesn't mean Christians can't listen to it. But it's nothing special on its own.

I might suggest, too, that the more good theology you listen to, the less pleasant the wishy-washy stuff will become to you. I've found myself weighing the theological merits of a song before downloading it, more and more, recently. So I think Todd has a point. Surround yourself with "the good stuff" and it will improve your spiritual life.

If you want me to suggest further theologically sound music, beyond the tracks I've made mention of above, you can contact me through my email (or leave a comment below) and I'll be glad to offer you more suggestions if you want to spiff up your Christian music album.



2. Penn Jilette, in correcting Piers Morgan on what Catholics believe, gives glory to God

Towards the end of the Wretched podcast, Todd plays a clip of Penn Jilette, a famous atheist, on Piers Morgan's talk show. Piers is apparently Catholic (who knew?), but he questions many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Penn Jilette corrects him by pointing out that true Catholics have to believe everything the Pope says, because that is an article of the Catholic faith. Since Morgan wanted to question the Pope, Jilette pointed out to him that that was what Martin Luther started, when he said that he believed everyone had the right and ability to interpret the Bible themselves.

This reminds me of what Paul the apostle wrote in Philippians 1:

"¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: ¹⁶ The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; ¹⁷ but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

I think we can rejoice that God saw fit to use a kindly atheist to correct a lapsed Roman Catholic and to point the entire viewing audience (in the hundreds of thousands?) to the fact that it is Protestant Christianity that asserts that everyone has the freedom to read the Bible on their own, to seek after truth.

There are many who are caught up in the false religious system of Roman Catholicism, which teaches many things that are contrary to the Bible. The fact that this exchange between Piers and Penn may give occasion for some Roman Catholics to question their supposed faith, and to read the Bible for themselves, is a cause for us all to rejoice.

~ Rak Chazak