One of the most debated quotation of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers must be the quotation that Peter gave to the crowd at Pentecost from Joel 2:28-32. Many people have sought to explained Joel's prophesy as speaking about the pouring of the Holy Spirit onto the 12 disciples. including Matthias and about 120 Jews (Acts 1:15). They reckoned that since Peter quoted from Joel, it must be so. Right?
Wrong. If one bother to read through the entire book of Joel (which isn't very long since it comprises only 3 chapters), one will realise that the only point of agreement was about the pouring of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the fulfillments were all missing at Pentecost.
The Timing Was Wrong
Joel 2:28 mentioned that the pouring of the Holy Spirit will "come about after this". What is this "after this"? Looking at Joel 2:1-10, the events preceding the pouring of the Holy Spirit will be a massive invasion of Jerusalem. This obviously did not happen in Acts.
The Composition Was Wrong
Joel 2:28-29 mentioned that the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh (NKJV) which in the context of Joel was on all Jews. Furthermore, Joel mentioned that "your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.". The Holy Spirit was only poured out onto the 12 disciples and possibly 120 followers in Acts. Also in Acts, no one did any prophesying, and certainly Luke did not record anyone dream dreams and see visions.
The Conditions Were Wrong
Peter's quote from Joel included the signs which said "I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.". Luke also did not record any such signs in Acts itself. Furthermore, Joel did not mentioned about the gift of tongues which were clearly manifested in Acts itself (Acts 2:4).
What we have here is a literal plus application quotation of the Old Testament. The literal meaning of the Joel passage speaks of Israel’s national salvation, when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all Israel, resulting in Israel’s national salvation in preparation for the Messianic Kingdom.
Of course, that did not happen in the Book of Acts, but there was one point of similarity. Because of that one point of similarity, the passage was quoted; not as a point of fulfillment, but as an application. That one point of similarity is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in a unique manifestation. In Joel, the Holy Spirit will some day be poured out upon the whole nation of Israel, resulting in some unique manifestations.
In Acts 2, the Spirit was poured out upon twelve, or one hundred twenty at the most, resulting in a unique manifestation, which in that case was speaking in tongues. The one point of similarity was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Because of that one point of similarity, the New Testament quoted the Old Testament passage as an application.
Acts 2 did not fulfill Joel 2 because, again, nothing that Joel prophesied actually happened in Acts 2. What did happen in Acts 2 was not even spoken of by Joel, because Joel did not mention the gift of tongues. So, because of one point of similarity, the Old Testament has quoted by the New Testament as an application.
(Passages in BLUE extracted from Fruchtenbaum Messianic Bible Studies MBS134M)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment
6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum
I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.
I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 3)
The next 4 Kingdom parables are only found in Matthew and reading through the entire chapter 13, it is clear that Jesus spoke about all 9 Kingdom parables in a single day after the national rejection by the Jews in Jesus' days. These next 4 parables are also private parables that were spoken to the 12 disciples alone.
(6) The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the hidden treasure. If we take reference from the Parable of the Tares, we can assume that the field represents the world (Matt 13:38).
So what is this Treasure? In Exo 19:5, Deut 7:6 (also Deut 14:2), Deut 26:18, and Psa 135:4, Israel is mentioned as God's סגלּה (segûllâh - peculiar/special treasure).
Hence the treasure is the nation of Israel for which Jesus gave His all to purchase the whole world to possess this treasure. This treasure remained hidden because though Israel was chosen by God as a witness to His glory, they failed and rejected His only Son as well.
According to Fruchtenbaum, the parable makes two main points. (1) Jesus purchased the treasure hidden in the field by the cross. (2) The treasure does not come into His possession, but only the place where the treasure is.
Basically, this parable makes the point that in the Mystery Kingdom, there will be Jews will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
(7) The Parable of the Merchant Seeking Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45-46)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the merchant seeking fine pearls.
Wiersbe wrote that the pearl represented the Church while Fruchtenbaum saw the pearl as the Gentiles of the Church for 2 reasons: (a) the Church comprises Jews and Gentiles, since the treasure represented the Jews, the pearls would corresponding refer to the Gentiles and (b) since pearls originated from the seas, and when the sea is used symbolically, it represents the Gentile world (Dan 7:2-3; Rev 17:15).
Wiersbe further added that pearls grow gradually and are hidden in the oyster shells, much like the Church, and will one day be revealed in its beauty. Fruchtenbaum noted that the pearl grew gradually "till the fullness of the Gentiles have come in" (Rom 11:25) and will be plucked out from the sea signifying the Rapture.
The parable makes the point that the Church, in particular the Gentiles, will come into Jesus' possession through His suffering, death and resurrection.
(8) The Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50)
The Kingdom of God will end with the judgment as represented by the dragnet, where the good fish will be separated from the bad. The environment of the sea also meant that this would be the judgment of the Gentiles which was explicitly detailed in Matt 25:31-46.
(9) The Parable of the Head of the Household (Matt 13:51-53)
This parable is extremely meaningful in that in describing a scribe (understanding the Law) who became a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven (doer of the Law), Jesus is saying that we bring out a treasure (God's Mystery Kingdom program) that is both old (established by the Old Testament) and new (established by the New Testament).
(6) The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the hidden treasure. If we take reference from the Parable of the Tares, we can assume that the field represents the world (Matt 13:38).
So what is this Treasure? In Exo 19:5, Deut 7:6 (also Deut 14:2), Deut 26:18, and Psa 135:4, Israel is mentioned as God's סגלּה (segûllâh - peculiar/special treasure).
Hence the treasure is the nation of Israel for which Jesus gave His all to purchase the whole world to possess this treasure. This treasure remained hidden because though Israel was chosen by God as a witness to His glory, they failed and rejected His only Son as well.
According to Fruchtenbaum, the parable makes two main points. (1) Jesus purchased the treasure hidden in the field by the cross. (2) The treasure does not come into His possession, but only the place where the treasure is.
Basically, this parable makes the point that in the Mystery Kingdom, there will be Jews will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
(7) The Parable of the Merchant Seeking Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45-46)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the merchant seeking fine pearls.
Wiersbe wrote that the pearl represented the Church while Fruchtenbaum saw the pearl as the Gentiles of the Church for 2 reasons: (a) the Church comprises Jews and Gentiles, since the treasure represented the Jews, the pearls would corresponding refer to the Gentiles and (b) since pearls originated from the seas, and when the sea is used symbolically, it represents the Gentile world (Dan 7:2-3; Rev 17:15).
Wiersbe further added that pearls grow gradually and are hidden in the oyster shells, much like the Church, and will one day be revealed in its beauty. Fruchtenbaum noted that the pearl grew gradually "till the fullness of the Gentiles have come in" (Rom 11:25) and will be plucked out from the sea signifying the Rapture.
The parable makes the point that the Church, in particular the Gentiles, will come into Jesus' possession through His suffering, death and resurrection.
(8) The Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50)
The Kingdom of God will end with the judgment as represented by the dragnet, where the good fish will be separated from the bad. The environment of the sea also meant that this would be the judgment of the Gentiles which was explicitly detailed in Matt 25:31-46.
(9) The Parable of the Head of the Household (Matt 13:51-53)
This parable is extremely meaningful in that in describing a scribe (understanding the Law) who became a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven (doer of the Law), Jesus is saying that we bring out a treasure (God's Mystery Kingdom program) that is both old (established by the Old Testament) and new (established by the New Testament).
Friday, November 09, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 2)
The next two Kingdom parables have generated very differing interpretations from Christians depending on their eschatological viewpoints. I should first confess that I subscribe to the dispensational premillennium viewpoint but I suggest that we let the Bible speak for itself.
(4) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)
The first view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience an extremely fruitful growth and pointed that the birds are the faithful believers that took shelter in this kingdom. The translators of NASB probably had this in mind when they alluded the birds with those mentioned in Ezekiel 17:23.
The second view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience a monstrous and abnormal growth and pointed that the birds are the the evil agents of Satan who will dwell amongst Christendom. This interpretation is in line with the Parable of the Sower where Jesus made reference to the birds that came to pick up the seeds sown beside the road.
I think it will be best to show pictures of mustard seeds and mustard plants before trying to explain why such disparate views exist.
In Matthew and Mark, Jesus stated the obvious fact that the mustard seed is "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" and yet pointed out in Matthew and Luke that it grew up to become a tree. Even in Mark, Jesus pointed out the plant grew large branches. In all 3 passages, the birds came and nested in its branches.
Looking at the picture of the mustard plant, it will be a leap of logic to see how the birds can nest comfortably in the "branches" and describing it as a tree seems to be extremely exaggerating to say the least since mustard seed grows to become a shrub, not a tree. While birds in the Bible did not symbolically only to things of evil origin (e.g., Ezekiel 17:23), I suggest that Jesus would not have sought to confuse us with a negative imagery of birds in the Parable of the Sower and then a positive imagery of birds all within a single chapter of Matthew.
If Jesus had wanted to portray the Kingdom of God experiencing an extremely fruitful growth, He could have used imagery of "an acorn growing up to be an oak" or "a cedar seed growing up to be one of the mighty trees of Lebanon" as it was described in the Ezekiel passage.
Faced with such wealth of evidences, why then would people still want to cling on to the fruitful Kingdom view? Most postmillennialists and many amillennalists take this view since it fits their eschatology to have a parable that tells of the kingdom's triumph in the world before Christ's return*. Of course, some Christians have arbitrarily decided that since nothing can or should thwart the work of God, the Kingdom of God is described in this parable needs to have a good ending. This also applies to the Parable of the Leaven which we will discuss later.
I think this view point is unfortunate and does not reflect what the Bible is saying. While we all like happy endings, it is a fact that the Bible characterised apostasy as something that will happen in the latter days (Matt 24:10-12, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3). Hence the "pessimistic" view of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is in line with the general theme of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed tells us that Christendom will grow into a monstrous proportion with agents of Satan residing within it. This is probably manifested in the various cults and corrupt movements within Christendom.
* Montgomery, "The Parables of Jesus".
(5) The Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)
Here, 2 key imageries are used: leaven and flour. Some have tried to speculate on who or what the woman in the parable represents and made the association that when women are used symbolically in the Bible, it often refers to a false religious system. Whether this was meant to be, it will not change the takeaway of this parable and taking the cue from Jesus' interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, I think the Bible will not provide any conclusive evidence for such speculations.
Turning to the leaven, the Bible has ample references to show that it always referred to as a symbol of sin (Matt 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1, 1 Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:9). Similar to the Parable of the Mustard Seed, amillennialists see leaven as not something that is evil but as something that represents hidden power in order to fit their eschatological viewpoint. It seems strange that amillennialists want to make this one parable an exception on what the leaven symbolised in all other passages.
Why did Jesus specifically detailed the 3 measures* (pecks) of flour? Fruchtenbaum has interpreted it as the 3 major entities of Christendom represented by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. He pointed out that each group has allowed a greater or lesser degree of false doctrine within.
Whatever the interpretation, the Parable of the Leaven makes the point that Christendom will experience intractable doctrinal corruption as represented by the leaven.
* Each measure represents about 7.3 litres.
(4) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)
The first view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience an extremely fruitful growth and pointed that the birds are the faithful believers that took shelter in this kingdom. The translators of NASB probably had this in mind when they alluded the birds with those mentioned in Ezekiel 17:23.
The second view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience a monstrous and abnormal growth and pointed that the birds are the the evil agents of Satan who will dwell amongst Christendom. This interpretation is in line with the Parable of the Sower where Jesus made reference to the birds that came to pick up the seeds sown beside the road.
I think it will be best to show pictures of mustard seeds and mustard plants before trying to explain why such disparate views exist.
In Matthew and Mark, Jesus stated the obvious fact that the mustard seed is "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" and yet pointed out in Matthew and Luke that it grew up to become a tree. Even in Mark, Jesus pointed out the plant grew large branches. In all 3 passages, the birds came and nested in its branches.
Looking at the picture of the mustard plant, it will be a leap of logic to see how the birds can nest comfortably in the "branches" and describing it as a tree seems to be extremely exaggerating to say the least since mustard seed grows to become a shrub, not a tree. While birds in the Bible did not symbolically only to things of evil origin (e.g., Ezekiel 17:23), I suggest that Jesus would not have sought to confuse us with a negative imagery of birds in the Parable of the Sower and then a positive imagery of birds all within a single chapter of Matthew.
If Jesus had wanted to portray the Kingdom of God experiencing an extremely fruitful growth, He could have used imagery of "an acorn growing up to be an oak" or "a cedar seed growing up to be one of the mighty trees of Lebanon" as it was described in the Ezekiel passage.
Faced with such wealth of evidences, why then would people still want to cling on to the fruitful Kingdom view? Most postmillennialists and many amillennalists take this view since it fits their eschatology to have a parable that tells of the kingdom's triumph in the world before Christ's return*. Of course, some Christians have arbitrarily decided that since nothing can or should thwart the work of God, the Kingdom of God is described in this parable needs to have a good ending. This also applies to the Parable of the Leaven which we will discuss later.
I think this view point is unfortunate and does not reflect what the Bible is saying. While we all like happy endings, it is a fact that the Bible characterised apostasy as something that will happen in the latter days (Matt 24:10-12, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3). Hence the "pessimistic" view of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is in line with the general theme of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed tells us that Christendom will grow into a monstrous proportion with agents of Satan residing within it. This is probably manifested in the various cults and corrupt movements within Christendom.
* Montgomery, "The Parables of Jesus".
(5) The Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)
Here, 2 key imageries are used: leaven and flour. Some have tried to speculate on who or what the woman in the parable represents and made the association that when women are used symbolically in the Bible, it often refers to a false religious system. Whether this was meant to be, it will not change the takeaway of this parable and taking the cue from Jesus' interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, I think the Bible will not provide any conclusive evidence for such speculations.
Turning to the leaven, the Bible has ample references to show that it always referred to as a symbol of sin (Matt 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1, 1 Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:9). Similar to the Parable of the Mustard Seed, amillennialists see leaven as not something that is evil but as something that represents hidden power in order to fit their eschatological viewpoint. It seems strange that amillennialists want to make this one parable an exception on what the leaven symbolised in all other passages.
Why did Jesus specifically detailed the 3 measures* (pecks) of flour? Fruchtenbaum has interpreted it as the 3 major entities of Christendom represented by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. He pointed out that each group has allowed a greater or lesser degree of false doctrine within.
Whatever the interpretation, the Parable of the Leaven makes the point that Christendom will experience intractable doctrinal corruption as represented by the leaven.
* Each measure represents about 7.3 litres.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 1)
If you make an attempt to harmonise the gospels, you will realise that the parables of the Kingdom were the very first series of parables taught by Jesus. I adapted most of of the following insights from the bible study series from Arnonld Fruchtenbaum.
When the Jews, collectively represented by the Pharisees and Scribes, rejected Jesus' messianic claims and attributed his messianic miracles to the work of Satan, Jesus pronounced judgment on the Israelite generation then for committing the "unpardonable" sin - rejecting God's manifestation of Jesus on earth. Straight away thereafter, He commenced his parabolic teaching, proclaiming the Mystery Kingdom in place of the Davidic Kingdom that the Israelites were waiting for which would have to await a later, future fulfillment (See my other post).
The 9 parables of the Kingdom can be found in Matthew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18.
(1) The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8)
Jesus explained the meaning of this parable in Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20 and Luke 8:11-15). This parable makes the point that there will be sowing of the gospel seed in this age with different responses - those who do not believe (birds who ate up the seeds), those who are saved but are not stablised because they were not rooted in the Word of God (seeds on rocky ground), those who are saved but are not stablised because they are distracted by the cares of the world (seeds amongst thorns) and those who are saved and are productive because they are rooted in the Word of God and are not distracted by the cares of the world (seeds on good ground).
It is critical to note Jesus' statement in Mark 4:13 that understanding this particular parable sets the context to understand the rest of the Kingdom parables. This will be clearer as we discuss the subsequent parables.
(2) The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)
This parable makes the point that the gospel seed which has been sown will have an inner energy that it will spring into life on its own accord. This is the mystery of the gospel message - How a simple message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death through his resurrection have change a person's course of life.
(3) The Parable of The Tares (Matt 13:24-30)
This parable was explained by Jesus in Matt 13:36-43. Tares (or darnel) are false wheats. Tares are indistinguishable from the real wheat until the ear is developed, when the thin fruitless ear of the darnel is detected. Its root would so intertwines with that of the wheat that the farmer cannot separate them, without plucking up both.
The one who sows the good seed - is the Son of Man
The field - is the world
The good seeds - are the sons of the kingdom
The tares - are the sons of the evil one
The enemy who sowed them - is the devil
The harvest - is the end of the age
The reapers - are angels
Jesus' interpretation of this parable should be the model on how we should understand all other parables. There were no exposition to why were the landowner's men sleeping, who were the slaves, why the landowner could not prevent his enemy from sowing the tares and why the landowner could not remove the tares from the onset.
This parable makes 4 essential points: (1) The sowing of the gospel seed will be imitated by false counter-sowing, (2) there is going to be side-by-side development of truth and falsehood which would be indistinguishable, (3) there is going to be judgment and (4) the final distinction will be the "fruit" that comes out of wheat and tare.
This parable also makes 3 sub-points:
(a) The good seeds are planted before the tares are sowed. This suggest that the tares are not generic sinful people in general but more accurately, false christians planted by Satan to hinder God's work and who are indistinguishable from true christians in the beginning.
(b) The landowner told the slaves not to gather the tares at the initial stage "for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them". While the passage did not shed further light into the reasons, one possible interpretation is that because we cannot tell true from false christians at this time, to exercise church discipline in an attempt to weed out the "tares" may damage or discourage true christians who have yet to mature.
(c) Who were the tares? - "all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness" [Matt 13:41]. While the latter are self-explanatory, it is interesting to note that those who prevent others from coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus were also lumped together those who commit lawlessness.
When the Jews, collectively represented by the Pharisees and Scribes, rejected Jesus' messianic claims and attributed his messianic miracles to the work of Satan, Jesus pronounced judgment on the Israelite generation then for committing the "unpardonable" sin - rejecting God's manifestation of Jesus on earth. Straight away thereafter, He commenced his parabolic teaching, proclaiming the Mystery Kingdom in place of the Davidic Kingdom that the Israelites were waiting for which would have to await a later, future fulfillment (See my other post).
The 9 parables of the Kingdom can be found in Matthew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18.
(1) The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8)
Jesus explained the meaning of this parable in Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20 and Luke 8:11-15). This parable makes the point that there will be sowing of the gospel seed in this age with different responses - those who do not believe (birds who ate up the seeds), those who are saved but are not stablised because they were not rooted in the Word of God (seeds on rocky ground), those who are saved but are not stablised because they are distracted by the cares of the world (seeds amongst thorns) and those who are saved and are productive because they are rooted in the Word of God and are not distracted by the cares of the world (seeds on good ground).
It is critical to note Jesus' statement in Mark 4:13 that understanding this particular parable sets the context to understand the rest of the Kingdom parables. This will be clearer as we discuss the subsequent parables.
(2) The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)
This parable makes the point that the gospel seed which has been sown will have an inner energy that it will spring into life on its own accord. This is the mystery of the gospel message - How a simple message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death through his resurrection have change a person's course of life.
(3) The Parable of The Tares (Matt 13:24-30)
This parable was explained by Jesus in Matt 13:36-43. Tares (or darnel) are false wheats. Tares are indistinguishable from the real wheat until the ear is developed, when the thin fruitless ear of the darnel is detected. Its root would so intertwines with that of the wheat that the farmer cannot separate them, without plucking up both.
The one who sows the good seed - is the Son of Man
The field - is the world
The good seeds - are the sons of the kingdom
The tares - are the sons of the evil one
The enemy who sowed them - is the devil
The harvest - is the end of the age
The reapers - are angels
Jesus' interpretation of this parable should be the model on how we should understand all other parables. There were no exposition to why were the landowner's men sleeping, who were the slaves, why the landowner could not prevent his enemy from sowing the tares and why the landowner could not remove the tares from the onset.
This parable makes 4 essential points: (1) The sowing of the gospel seed will be imitated by false counter-sowing, (2) there is going to be side-by-side development of truth and falsehood which would be indistinguishable, (3) there is going to be judgment and (4) the final distinction will be the "fruit" that comes out of wheat and tare.
This parable also makes 3 sub-points:
(a) The good seeds are planted before the tares are sowed. This suggest that the tares are not generic sinful people in general but more accurately, false christians planted by Satan to hinder God's work and who are indistinguishable from true christians in the beginning.
(b) The landowner told the slaves not to gather the tares at the initial stage "for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them". While the passage did not shed further light into the reasons, one possible interpretation is that because we cannot tell true from false christians at this time, to exercise church discipline in an attempt to weed out the "tares" may damage or discourage true christians who have yet to mature.
(c) Who were the tares? - "all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness" [Matt 13:41]. While the latter are self-explanatory, it is interesting to note that those who prevent others from coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus were also lumped together those who commit lawlessness.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Letter to the ST Forum - Polarisation beginning to show
1 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum
BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.
BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)