Supreme Court Overreach

Two important cases hit the Supreme Court this week (and we will discuss each of them in this post), but honestly, the wrong one is receiving the attention.

Don't get me wrong - homosexuality is a sin. But I don't see that the Supreme Court decision is that big of a deal from the standpoint of Christian ethics. From the way people are talking, this signifies that Christians have lost the battle on marriage and that this redefinition will corrupt society.

While marriage is incredibly important, and its redefinition will has corrupted society.

The reason why this decision is no big deal is that Christians lost the battle on marriage back some, I don't know, years and years ago when it was still shameful in our culture to be homosexual. We lost the battle on marriage when it was redefined to only mean a union based on the love of two people, and their desire for commitment.

Marriage has never been solely about people. It's been about God. It's been a covenant before God that reflects God's relationship with His people. In the Old Testament, that meant the Israelites; in the New Testament and now, that means the church. At the point where we lost that in heterosexual relationships, the battle on marriage was already lost.

Once marriage is redefined as only the celebration of love between two people (we are not talking about sex here), can you really argue with homosexual marriage? I mean, it certainly seems offensive and nonsensical to say that heterosexual love is somehow more worthy to be celebrated than homosexual love.

But once marriage was redefined by the way our culture framed it, that's what we would be left arguing. But in the grand scheme of things, this court decision matters little from the standpoint of the sanctity of marriage because marriage had already been corrupted long ago. This is simply a manifestation of that.

From a political standpoint, things do prove to be a bit more interesting. It would seem to me that this whole homosexual marriage decision should never have been made by a court. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, and the way that they managed to work that into this decision is a little questionable.

To say that the right to marriage is included under the fourteenth amendment's protection is just flat out ridiculous. There is very little referenced in the text about the dignity that Justice Kennedy sees as paramount to this position. Additionally, you could question, why marriage ever had anything to do with the government in the first place? Oh, right, taxes.

But why even on a broader level is this a federal issue? The fourteenth amendment is the catch-all for applying the Constitution to the states and those claims are very dubious indeed.

Determining what marriage should look like in each state is something that should probably be decided by people in that state, not bureaucrats in robes sitting behind a bench. But I have shown a little too much of my libertarianism in this post.

I guess we should look at the other important Supreme Court decision now. I haven't heard as many opinions on this that I disagree with, so I won't spend as much time on it. But I wonder how many of you immediately know what I'm talking about when I mention the other decision.

The Affordable Care Act was being challenged, but not so as if to repeal it or take it off the books. No, this challenge said that the text of the law did not allow federal power where the federal government wanted power.

The question was about in places where states do not want to establish exchanges. The federal government does not have the authority to force states to comply with this part of the law, and that the Court did not contest. Instead, in these places, the federal government simply runs the exchange.

The question before the court was if the federal government, by the text of the law, would be able to enforce subsidies themselves in this situation. As Dr. Marc Clauson reports,

"The issue in this case is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange rather than a State Exchange. The Act initially provides that tax credits 'shall be allowed' for any 'applicable taxpayer.' 26 U. S. C. §36B(a). The Act then provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through 'an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'" 

It would seem rather problematic for the law that can be stifled by a state who does not want to set up an exchange. In that situation, there seems to be no reason to assume that the subsidy program of Affordable Care Act can apply, unless you take the meaning of state to mean government, rather than one of the 50 states.

Which I suppose is possible, but making that clarification of a vague law is hardly the role of the Supreme Court. Clarifying the law in this way is the spot of the legislative branch itself. Allowing the Court to do this is an open door for them "clarifying" many laws now and in the future.

But the clarification even now still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As Dr. Clauson wrote,

"The Court apparently wanted to save Obamacare.  So it said essentially that the term “state” the language above meant either a state or the Federal government.  This meant that it had to interpret the word state as “the state,” some government, any government, to get to the point of including the Federal government.  Roberts seemed to realize this, since he said it was not a natural interpretation.  But that didn’t stop him or the majority."

Thus, the Court saves Obamacare instead of letting it go through the normal legislative procedures. And you know, that is a scary precedent to set.

So, from the standpoint of the Court doing what it's supposed to do, it was a pretty bad week in both of these cases as both represent overreach.

Going Deeper in the Book of Nehemiah

I'm guessing you've gathered from my rather brilliant title that we are going deeper into the book of Nehemiah today. You should pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment.

But yes, that book which I and every one else loves to discuss and share truths from is exactly where we'll be going once more. Hopefully, you haven't grown bored of a wonderful part of the Word of God yet!

So we all are pretty familiar with the events of the book. The Israelites are in bad shape - they are poor because of a famine, their rulers are exploiting their poverty, simply making it worse, they are selling their children into slavery because things are just that bad. And then just to top it off, their wall's been torn down.

Now the wall wouldn't have just looked cool for the Israelites! Rather, it would have been protection from outside forces. Thus, the Israelites were vulnerable to attacks from Sanballat and Tobiah and the lesser-known Geshem the Arabian.

But we know that Nehemiah enters the story and suddenly all else is good in the world. Nehemiah's life can teach us many great lessons, like how to properly handle burdens, how to be a good leader, and how to keep from getting ambushed in the wilderness (the answer is of course, don't go because you are too involved in the work of the Lord).

But you know what in all of these things we seem to be missing one largely important thing - why was the book written in the first place? Why did Nehemiah pen these words? Better yet, why did the Holy Spirit direct Nehemiah to write this book?

Pulling in all our lessons are not necessarily wrong, but we should dig a little deeper to find out why it was written.

And of course, to do that, it would be necessary to take ourselves back to the time in which it was written.

The time is after the 70 years predicted by Jeremiah that the captivity would last. The Temple has been rebuilt, and the people have returned to Jerusalem. At that time, everyone thought that this was it. That Zerubbabel, the son of David, would rise to the throne, and Israel would be restored.

But no throne for poor Zerubbabel, and David's line had still not returned to the throne of Israel. God didn't seem to be keeping His promises anymore. Indeed, the fact that there was a famine and that everything seemed stacked against the Israelites might have led many to wonder - does God even care?

Then comes Nehemiah. When he hears of the destruction of the wall, he is distraught, but he does one thing at the very beginning of the book. He prays. And in that prayer, he confirms that God is not the kind of being that turns His back on His people. Instead in Nehemiah 1:5, we read,

"And said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:"

 God keeps covenant and mercy for them that love Him and observe His commandments. Hmmm... I guess that means God still cares for His people right?

Further, it is seen that this word for mercy, is the covenantal word hּׅesed which could be translated loyal love or lovingkindness, but actually means a lot more. It is a word linked to the covenants of God. The covenant this one seems to link to would be the conditional mosaic covenant. If the Israelites hold up their end of the bargain, God will hold up His. 

Thus, Nehemiah seeks to show that God still cares for His people and those that love Him. It signifies this theme by showing God's provision through the person of Nehemiah, as well as showing the Israelites grow to observe more of God's commandments. 

So, does God still care, according to Nehemiah, it's against his nature not to. And where do we find this proclamation? Well, right at the beginning, where you would expect to find a thesis statement! 

And that's not all. If you were writing  story, you'd want your theme to be explicit from the start, but you would also want to repeat it from time to time. Observe, how this operates in the book of Nehemiah, 

"Think upon me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people." ~Nehemiah 5:19 

"My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear." ~Nehemiah 6:14 

"And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good." ~Nehemiah 13:31  

It's easy to just read past these words, but when you examine this based on the purpose behind the book itself, you notice that these are actually super important textual clues that point to a unified part of the book.

And you should pay special attention to what shows up in Nehemiah 13:32.


For those of you who actually follow all my Bible links, I'm sorry. There is not Nehemiah 13:32, and there isn't a Nehemiah 14 either. The book ends with Nehemiah asking the Lord, "Remember me, O my God, for good."

That is not a coincidence. Because when you are writing anything, you try to make sure your point is near the beginning of the book, near the end of the book, and interspersed throughout the book, and that's exactly what Nehemiah has done here.

So what does it all mean? It means that God does not abandon His people. He didn't abandon Israel, and He won't abandon us. Indeed, if it seems that you are having difficulty in your relationship with the Lord, it can only be because you have sin that is driving you away from the Lord.

The good news, the Lord will still extend care and provision and His unconditional promises, like salvation to those who have accepted Him no matter what. Also, He is always willing to restore fellowship with those who want to love Him and observe His commandments once more.

 Read within this light, those stories certainly do hold a lot more weight than some moral we apply to them, don't they?

Psalm 23: Surely Goodness and Mercy will "Follow" You

So, with the first week of a long and busy summer done, I seem to have forgotten how to write. Seeing how I am taking an online composition class, I suppose I need to remember pretty soon.

Have you ever wondered about the blessings of God and just how much they tend to pursue those who do right? Probably not, but that does seem to be message of Psalm 23:6. Psalm 23 as a whole of course, reads, 

"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever."

This is an interesting chapter to be sure, and I believe the meaning of one Hebrew word (with touches of meaning on other words as well) is instrumental to understanding the passage.

The word translated as "follow" here in this text is generally used for purposes that involve more energy and less passive than the meaning currently given by the word "follow." Thus, I would say that the definition of rādap in Psalm 23:6 is more along the lines of actively, persistently, and energetically pursuing an individual as if one was chasing or hunting an individual within a military situation.

It would seem that in general rādap means this more active pursuit with energy, rather than the more passive, “follow.” Thus, in order to justify a translation of the word which was that weaker form of the word, we would need to see clear textual and contextual reasons why that meaning was actually directed.

However, we see no such clues. Indeed, we see quite the opposite. The chapter’s emphasis upon trusting the Lord completely and wholly because of His providential care for His people is only strengthened by the thought that the Lord’s goodness and mercy will follow us persistently. This understanding is consistent with the way the Lord’s providence is displayed throughout the rest of the passage.

For example, in verse 2, it explains that “he maketh me to lie down in green pastures.” At first this doesn’t seem to highlight anything important, but if we remember the imagery of a shepherd that David is using here. The shepherd’s job was to find grass where the sheep could eat, and then direct them to another pasture where they could have their next meal.

This aspect of lying down in green pastures is an indication that the Lord provided a pasture that was so green that it would prepare them not just for this meal, but for the next. This providence then is not a weak just getting by care, but rather an exhaustive care for all issues in life. With that in mind, it makes little sense to assume that the use of rādap is weaker than the has been translated elsewhere in the Old Testament, when the Lord’s providential care is being emphasized as being way more than sufficient.

I believe it is important to emphasize the strength of the effort of the pursuit of God’s mercy and goodness in our lives. The military pursuit that this is often translated actually highlights the word rādap in the text. Within this text, that would mean that goodness and mercy pursue us with the same fervor and diligence as a man does who is seeking revenge or carrying out military orders.

As we continually will be in sin, we will continually need the Lord’s mercy and goodness to pursue us vigorously. Simply, pleasing the LORD would be nigh impossible if goodness and mercy only half-heartedly followed us.

More to the context of Psalm 23 as a whole, though, the Lord’s persistent pursuing of His people allows us to have no excuse for not fully trusting in His name. Not only does it provide an ample reason why we should trust Him in that the LORD is interested enough in lowly us, it also provides all that we need to be able to continue to grow in our relationship with Him.

Due to the covenantal nature of the word translated as mercy (hּׅesed), it is clear that one of the other reasons this chapter gives us to trust in the LORD is that he is able to keep His promises and allow His covenantal love to energetically pursue all His people. There is never a time when our sin begins to take us outside of God’s covenantal love. The Lord will always keep His promises, this is reified by the use of rādap to indicated that God’s covenantal love will energetically pursue in this case, David.

This understanding frames the entire chapter within the context of the Lord’s faithfulness in keeping His promises. This then highlights ample reasons why we should trust the LORD in all that we do. Allow Him to be our Shepherd and bless us as He has promised to do because ultimately we can’t fall outside of His promises. But just like any other element of God’s grace, we shouldn’t treat this as license to sin, but instead look for it as another reason why the LORD deserves our worship, service, and love.