25 Dec 2008 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril
17 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Double standards: In sedition case and DBS charity tie-up
9 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Bible Literalism (Part 1)
Recently picked up a book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs from the local library about a person's one-year journey to take the Bible literally and do exactly as it is presented, at face value. Rather than feeling peeved and upset over the author's at times cheap shots at Christianity, I found it an eye-opening experience and realised how much I know (or not know) about my Bible. It was also interesting to see how opponents of Christianity can find any platform available to them to denounce the faith. Hence we have John Shelby Spong being quoted by the book publisher:
"[The author] has perceived the distinction between the wisdom of the Bible and is absurdities. It is a shame that so many of both our clergy and our politicians seem incapable of making that distinction."
To begin, Jacobs humble quest to follow the Bible as literal as possible is a misnomer. While claiming literalness, Jacobs obviously caveat it by stating that his plan was to "try to find the original intention of the biblical rule or teaching and follow that to the letter. If the passage is unquestionably figurative, then I won't obey it literally." Then he went on to impose his own mental model on the various laws. Not surprisingly, the first one that he waffled through is the 10% tithes.
Where better to start than to pick on the two extremities.
Do not Mix Wool and Linen
The first was his hilarious journey in tackling his Top Five Most Perplexing Rules in the Bible - The ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres", specifically the rule not to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). In the midst of engaging an expert to rummage through his wardrobe to ensure that he abides by the rule, he put forth the point that obeying rules with no rational explanation is a jarring one.
Obviously, without starting from the right footing, plunging into the Mosaic Laws would not make much of a sense. What Jacobs failed to realise (at least he did not reflect it in the book) is that the Laws were given to the nation of Israel to set them apart from the wide-spread paganistic culture during their time. While we can postulate the rationale for the bulk of the rules, some are just rules to differentiate them from the pagans. If you dress differently from the crowd, you are obviously more likely not to succumb to the culture of the masses. It is a simple and straightforward principle.
Sabbath - Made for Men, Not The Other Way Round
Of course being a Jew, his treatment of the Sabbath ordnance was heavily leaned toward the Orthodox Judaism interpretation. Given my familiarity with Jewish interpretation of work, the part about tearing up toilet paper in advance so as not to be "working" while toileting during Sabbath was absolutely hilarious. It is sad to see how a compassionate rule to encourage humans and the land to rest has become one that enslaves us. Being literally in the Sabbath observance means just to rest when it is mandated. Going beyond what it is written is embellishment, not literalism. Jesus, during His time on earth, addressed this issue and said that Sabbath was made for men and not men for Sabbath. When the rabbis went to the extreme to label healing and helping others as work during Sabbath, we have obviously crossed the line.
(To be continued...)
"[The author] has perceived the distinction between the wisdom of the Bible and is absurdities. It is a shame that so many of both our clergy and our politicians seem incapable of making that distinction."
To begin, Jacobs humble quest to follow the Bible as literal as possible is a misnomer. While claiming literalness, Jacobs obviously caveat it by stating that his plan was to "try to find the original intention of the biblical rule or teaching and follow that to the letter. If the passage is unquestionably figurative, then I won't obey it literally." Then he went on to impose his own mental model on the various laws. Not surprisingly, the first one that he waffled through is the 10% tithes.
Where better to start than to pick on the two extremities.
Do not Mix Wool and Linen
The first was his hilarious journey in tackling his Top Five Most Perplexing Rules in the Bible - The ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres", specifically the rule not to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). In the midst of engaging an expert to rummage through his wardrobe to ensure that he abides by the rule, he put forth the point that obeying rules with no rational explanation is a jarring one.
Obviously, without starting from the right footing, plunging into the Mosaic Laws would not make much of a sense. What Jacobs failed to realise (at least he did not reflect it in the book) is that the Laws were given to the nation of Israel to set them apart from the wide-spread paganistic culture during their time. While we can postulate the rationale for the bulk of the rules, some are just rules to differentiate them from the pagans. If you dress differently from the crowd, you are obviously more likely not to succumb to the culture of the masses. It is a simple and straightforward principle.
Sabbath - Made for Men, Not The Other Way Round
Of course being a Jew, his treatment of the Sabbath ordnance was heavily leaned toward the Orthodox Judaism interpretation. Given my familiarity with Jewish interpretation of work, the part about tearing up toilet paper in advance so as not to be "working" while toileting during Sabbath was absolutely hilarious. It is sad to see how a compassionate rule to encourage humans and the land to rest has become one that enslaves us. Being literally in the Sabbath observance means just to rest when it is mandated. Going beyond what it is written is embellishment, not literalism. Jesus, during His time on earth, addressed this issue and said that Sabbath was made for men and not men for Sabbath. When the rabbis went to the extreme to label healing and helping others as work during Sabbath, we have obviously crossed the line.
(To be continued...)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Abortion and euthanasia deserve equal debate
25 Oct 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.
I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.
I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.
The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.
Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.
Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:
'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?
'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).
'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'
IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.
I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.
I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.
The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.
Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.
Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:
'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?
'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).
'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
On Abortion
My latest foray into ST Forum writing that didn't get published, probably because there were many similar letters castigating the writer for her "emotive" outburst. Looking forward to see her next piece on this issue, if ever.
Singapore Singapore
I refer to Ms Lynn Lee (ST, 31 Jul 08) response to Ms Tan Seow Hon (ST, 24 Jul 08) on the subject of abortion legislation.
The 24-weeks window was originally articulated based on the medical community’s ability to sustain life outside the womb. Given the medical advances in the last 40 years, it is plausible for us to refresh the legislation based on this medical “definition” from which life “begins”.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
God According to Dawkins
I had decided to pick up Dawkins' The God Delusion from the public library to find out what was the big fuss that surrounded this book that spun the various "copycats" by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and many others to jump on the atheist bandwagon.
After one-third way into the book and reading quotes upon quotes and examples upon examples of "incompetent" Christian writers, I decided to flip to the index section and it was obvious that Dawkins had cherry-picked those that would explain his world view. There were no quotations or examples from competent Christian apologists like Josh Mcdowell, Norman Geisler, Criag Blomberg, or Peter Kreeft to just name a few. The single mention of Billy Graham was about his alma mater. When you decided to load the dice at the beginning to pick the wrong examples, you will inadvertently end up able to justify and "prove" anything and in this case, Dawkins "succeeded" in showing up the "inadequacy" of Christianity. But is that the case?
Dawkins mentioned a few "favourite" examples of bible detractors, namely the "misquotation" of virgin birth by Isaiah and the conflicting geneologies of the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke. These examples of inaccuracies were competently answered by Christian apologists whom Dawkins chose not to quote from. Take the example of the Hebrew word "almah", translated into Greek by the New Testament as "parthenos". Dawkins, like many others, made a meal about how Christians have mischievously translated this word from its original meaning of young maiden to virgin to fit their theology. However, we don't have to be a Hebrew or Greek expert to understand that context of Isaiah's prophesy demands that we make this inference.
Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.". But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.". (Isaiah 7:10-14)
The context here is God giving Ahaz a SIGN. It is baffling to see how a young maiden being with a child and bearing a son be a SIGN from God unless it is something supernatural, in this case the young maiden being a virgin. The passage speaks volumes for itself.
Throughout the book, Dawkins threw cheap shots regarding how the God Hypothesis is beyond proof by mentioning in the same vein the plausibility of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot and Dawkins' very own Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is interesting that Dawkins failed to mention that while no recorded account of people who suffered and lost their life for believing in the teapot and monster, many have laid down their lives for their belief in the Almighty God of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Dawkins also pointed out logically that if there was really a God, He could have settled this discussion once and for all and put all the atheists in their place by appearing to the world as we know today. This is a seductive argument but flawed nonetheless. If Dawkins had taken the trouble to read the Scriptures (which he had decided not to because reputed biblical scholars that he consults do not in general regard the New or Old Testaments as a reliable record of what had actually happened in history), he would have discovered that God had actually manifested on earth exactly to do just that twice in human history. Once to the people of Israel during the time of Moses and once to the nation of Israel with the birth of Jesus. Both times, God demonstrated His glory and power and implored the people to draw near to Him. On both occasions, He was sorely let down.
Almost immediately after the Israelites were miraculously and spectacularly delivered from the Egyptians, they grumbled that God should have left them in Egypt rather than let them die of thirst and hunger in the wilderness. Even after Jesus demonstrated His God-given credentials to be the Messiah and offered the Kingdom to the Israelites of His time, the Israelites meekly deferred to their Pharisaic leadership and rejected Jesus' offer by demanding Jesus be crucified for blasphemy and would preferred to have a criminal accused of treason pardoned rather than Jesus. If God was to appear to us today, I suspect that our reactions will not be much better and certainly after a generation or two, we would have raised up new Dawkins and Hitchens to clamour for God to show Himself AGAIN.
God has revealed His Son Jesus to us in this last days. It is true that many people have exploited and misused Christianity for their own political and selfish agenda. It is something that we are ashamed of. This cannot detract us from the saving grace that God has offered to us through Jesus death on the cross and His resurrection. Throughout history, God has been shown to be patient and long-suffering, not wishing anyone of us will perish (see my other post). Let us give ourselves this one opportunity to be open to the message that He has preserved for us in the Bible. Study and explore, and make the decision for yourself.
After one-third way into the book and reading quotes upon quotes and examples upon examples of "incompetent" Christian writers, I decided to flip to the index section and it was obvious that Dawkins had cherry-picked those that would explain his world view. There were no quotations or examples from competent Christian apologists like Josh Mcdowell, Norman Geisler, Criag Blomberg, or Peter Kreeft to just name a few. The single mention of Billy Graham was about his alma mater. When you decided to load the dice at the beginning to pick the wrong examples, you will inadvertently end up able to justify and "prove" anything and in this case, Dawkins "succeeded" in showing up the "inadequacy" of Christianity. But is that the case?
Dawkins mentioned a few "favourite" examples of bible detractors, namely the "misquotation" of virgin birth by Isaiah and the conflicting geneologies of the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke. These examples of inaccuracies were competently answered by Christian apologists whom Dawkins chose not to quote from. Take the example of the Hebrew word "almah", translated into Greek by the New Testament as "parthenos". Dawkins, like many others, made a meal about how Christians have mischievously translated this word from its original meaning of young maiden to virgin to fit their theology. However, we don't have to be a Hebrew or Greek expert to understand that context of Isaiah's prophesy demands that we make this inference.
Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.". But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.". (Isaiah 7:10-14)
The context here is God giving Ahaz a SIGN. It is baffling to see how a young maiden being with a child and bearing a son be a SIGN from God unless it is something supernatural, in this case the young maiden being a virgin. The passage speaks volumes for itself.
Throughout the book, Dawkins threw cheap shots regarding how the God Hypothesis is beyond proof by mentioning in the same vein the plausibility of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot and Dawkins' very own Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is interesting that Dawkins failed to mention that while no recorded account of people who suffered and lost their life for believing in the teapot and monster, many have laid down their lives for their belief in the Almighty God of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Dawkins also pointed out logically that if there was really a God, He could have settled this discussion once and for all and put all the atheists in their place by appearing to the world as we know today. This is a seductive argument but flawed nonetheless. If Dawkins had taken the trouble to read the Scriptures (which he had decided not to because reputed biblical scholars that he consults do not in general regard the New or Old Testaments as a reliable record of what had actually happened in history), he would have discovered that God had actually manifested on earth exactly to do just that twice in human history. Once to the people of Israel during the time of Moses and once to the nation of Israel with the birth of Jesus. Both times, God demonstrated His glory and power and implored the people to draw near to Him. On both occasions, He was sorely let down.
Almost immediately after the Israelites were miraculously and spectacularly delivered from the Egyptians, they grumbled that God should have left them in Egypt rather than let them die of thirst and hunger in the wilderness. Even after Jesus demonstrated His God-given credentials to be the Messiah and offered the Kingdom to the Israelites of His time, the Israelites meekly deferred to their Pharisaic leadership and rejected Jesus' offer by demanding Jesus be crucified for blasphemy and would preferred to have a criminal accused of treason pardoned rather than Jesus. If God was to appear to us today, I suspect that our reactions will not be much better and certainly after a generation or two, we would have raised up new Dawkins and Hitchens to clamour for God to show Himself AGAIN.
God has revealed His Son Jesus to us in this last days. It is true that many people have exploited and misused Christianity for their own political and selfish agenda. It is something that we are ashamed of. This cannot detract us from the saving grace that God has offered to us through Jesus death on the cross and His resurrection. Throughout history, God has been shown to be patient and long-suffering, not wishing anyone of us will perish (see my other post). Let us give ourselves this one opportunity to be open to the message that He has preserved for us in the Bible. Study and explore, and make the decision for yourself.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Genesis 3 - The Fall of Man
It is extremely depressing that the first man spend a grand total of 3 chapters before he fell from grace. Satan, after he has taken over control over the serpent, approached Eve to reclaim his dominion over the earth, after having lost it when he decided that he wanted to be like God.
Satan's Strategy
See how he twisted God's word:
What God said: From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat (Gen 2:16-17)
What Satan said: has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?
What Eve said: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'
Satan's Response: You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
There are a few points to note here. First, Eve was not present when God gave Adam this command so it was left to him to explain the Adamic covenant to Eve. Some have wondered whether Adam actually passed on the message correctly and whether Eve added on to God's instructions. It is sufficient to deduce from Eve's reply to Satan that she knew the basics.
Secondly, it is instructive to understand how Satan attacks us by always stressing the negatives, just like our human nature always focus on the things that we do not have rather than those things that God has already richly blessed us with. God gave only ONE single restrictive instruction to Adam and Eve regarding the issue of food in the garden and yet the two of them decided that this single instruction was too difficult to follow.
Thirdly, there is this huge protracted debate about God's purpose in setting up this test if, in His omniscience, He knew that the 2 of them would have failed. They asked whether God has set them up for failure. Of course, those who subscribed to open theism will circumvent this "problem" by pointing out that God did not at that point know that Adam and Eve would choose the contrary path (Personally this sounds like a cop-out and does not gel with the Bible says about God). I do not claimed to have an elegant answer between God's foreknowledge and His intent to proceed with this test. I can only say that (1) it was not an unreasonable instruction and (2) in his infinite wisdom, He already knew what He had to do to redeem His creation. This will be revealed a few verses later.
The Fall of Man (and Woman)
The woman fell "hook-line-and-sinker" to Satan's strategy and she fell for the lusts of the flesh (the tree was good for food), the eye (a delight to the eyes) and the pride (the tree was desirable to make one wise). It was here that the Bible revealed to us that Adam was all along together with Eve during this entire exchange. The fact that Bible did not record Adam making any effort to counter Satan or stop Eve from breaking God's instruction demonstrated that Adam was as culpable as Eve. Collectively, both Adam and Eve were equally guilty of being disobedient to God.
In any case, the result was that the Bible described that "the eyes of both of them were opened" and they realised that they were naked. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for naked here (עירם) and the one used at the end of chapter 2 (ערום) are spelled differently, possibly signifying the loss of innocence.
God's Judgment
Verses 8 and 9 have been used by some as evidence that the concept of the omnipresence and omniscience of Yahweh was developed only in the later part of the Bible. Here, God is described as having a physical presence and was not even aware of the location of Adam and Eve. There is, of course, a simpler explanation in that the Bible here is describing a physical manifestation of God's presence and God's question of "where are you?" was not evidence of lack of knowledge but an indictment of Adam's sin.
The temptation to "pass the buck" seems to have a very early origin as Adam was quick to point the finger at both God and Eve for causing him to sin (The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.). Eve fared a little better, admitting that she was deceived by Satan.
On the Serpent
Some people have wondered why did God punished the serpent when it was Satan that used it as a vehicle to cause Adam to sin. This however has been God's principle that He viewed the life of human being more than that of animals (Leviticus 24:21). While it was not clear whether the serpent had any choice to be used, it was clear that the punishment came as a result of causing man's physical and spiritual death.
On Satan
From this point onwards, Satan has waged a constant war of attrition with woman. Because Satan knew that God's redemptive plan will come through the woman, he has attempted to corrupt it through inter-marriage described in Genesis 6:1-4. While it was not apparent here why the Messiah would come from a seed of a woman given that the Biblical norm was to trace the seed through the male line, Isaiah 7:14 shed the light when it proclaimed that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Satan's future was also revealed in this pronouncement that while the Messiah would be bruised in the heel (crucifixion), Satan would ultimately be dealt the final judgment and be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
On the Woman
There are 2 slightly differing interpretation of Genesis 3:16 (NKJV and NASB). NKJV seems to suggest that besides multiplying the labour pains, God has also multiplied menstrual pains and the ability to conceive. NASB has assumed that this verse is a hendiadys (a figure of speech used for emphasis) and thus interpreted as a single idea of labour pains.
The woman's relationship with her husband would also undergo a radical change as a result of the fall. Although God has ordained that the man will be the head of the partnership (and he will rule over you), the woman will attempt to overturn this (your desire will be for your husband). The word "desire" is not sexual but rather to control or dominate. This same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 4:7 in reference to sin's desire for Cain.
On the Man
God's judgment comprises (a) cursing of the earth [Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you], (b) human diet [you will eat the plants of the field], (c) hard labour [By the sweat of your face you will eat bread] and (d) physical death [Till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return].
Garment of Skin
The first record of physical death probably occurred at this point when God in His providence and care provided clothing made out of animal skin to replace the flimsy-made garment of fig leaves . Theologians also pointed to this passage as the first demonstration of God's demand for blood as a covering for sin. This theme would be further elaborated in the course of Biblical history.
Driven from the Garden of Eden
Even God's action to banish (literally driving out) Adam and Eve from the garden and the setting up of the cherubim to guard the tree of life can be seen as God's loving-kindness towards us. How? As sinners, the ability to live forever in a future that is bleak will certainly be a frightening thought. Think about someone like Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao Zedong living forever and you get the point.
The other point to note is the need to set up cherubim (meaning more than one cherub) and the flaming sword to guard the tree of life. Why was there a need to put the highest order of the angelic beings to guard it against man when one normal angel will do? Especially when one normal angel was able to send pestilence to destroy 70,000 people (2 Sam 24:10-17). The Bible doesn't say but God could be guarding it against Satan whom, before his own fall, was himself a cherub (Eze 28:12-19).
It was definitely a sad ending to what could have been a blessing for Adam and Eve but unconscious to them, God has already put in place the grand plan of salvation.
Satan's Strategy
See how he twisted God's word:
What God said: From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat (Gen 2:16-17)
What Satan said: has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?
What Eve said: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'
Satan's Response: You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
There are a few points to note here. First, Eve was not present when God gave Adam this command so it was left to him to explain the Adamic covenant to Eve. Some have wondered whether Adam actually passed on the message correctly and whether Eve added on to God's instructions. It is sufficient to deduce from Eve's reply to Satan that she knew the basics.
Secondly, it is instructive to understand how Satan attacks us by always stressing the negatives, just like our human nature always focus on the things that we do not have rather than those things that God has already richly blessed us with. God gave only ONE single restrictive instruction to Adam and Eve regarding the issue of food in the garden and yet the two of them decided that this single instruction was too difficult to follow.
Thirdly, there is this huge protracted debate about God's purpose in setting up this test if, in His omniscience, He knew that the 2 of them would have failed. They asked whether God has set them up for failure. Of course, those who subscribed to open theism will circumvent this "problem" by pointing out that God did not at that point know that Adam and Eve would choose the contrary path (Personally this sounds like a cop-out and does not gel with the Bible says about God). I do not claimed to have an elegant answer between God's foreknowledge and His intent to proceed with this test. I can only say that (1) it was not an unreasonable instruction and (2) in his infinite wisdom, He already knew what He had to do to redeem His creation. This will be revealed a few verses later.
The Fall of Man (and Woman)
The woman fell "hook-line-and-sinker" to Satan's strategy and she fell for the lusts of the flesh (the tree was good for food), the eye (a delight to the eyes) and the pride (the tree was desirable to make one wise). It was here that the Bible revealed to us that Adam was all along together with Eve during this entire exchange. The fact that Bible did not record Adam making any effort to counter Satan or stop Eve from breaking God's instruction demonstrated that Adam was as culpable as Eve. Collectively, both Adam and Eve were equally guilty of being disobedient to God.
In any case, the result was that the Bible described that "the eyes of both of them were opened" and they realised that they were naked. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for naked here (עירם) and the one used at the end of chapter 2 (ערום) are spelled differently, possibly signifying the loss of innocence.
God's Judgment
Verses 8 and 9 have been used by some as evidence that the concept of the omnipresence and omniscience of Yahweh was developed only in the later part of the Bible. Here, God is described as having a physical presence and was not even aware of the location of Adam and Eve. There is, of course, a simpler explanation in that the Bible here is describing a physical manifestation of God's presence and God's question of "where are you?" was not evidence of lack of knowledge but an indictment of Adam's sin.
The temptation to "pass the buck" seems to have a very early origin as Adam was quick to point the finger at both God and Eve for causing him to sin (The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.). Eve fared a little better, admitting that she was deceived by Satan.
On the Serpent
Some people have wondered why did God punished the serpent when it was Satan that used it as a vehicle to cause Adam to sin. This however has been God's principle that He viewed the life of human being more than that of animals (Leviticus 24:21). While it was not clear whether the serpent had any choice to be used, it was clear that the punishment came as a result of causing man's physical and spiritual death.
On Satan
From this point onwards, Satan has waged a constant war of attrition with woman. Because Satan knew that God's redemptive plan will come through the woman, he has attempted to corrupt it through inter-marriage described in Genesis 6:1-4. While it was not apparent here why the Messiah would come from a seed of a woman given that the Biblical norm was to trace the seed through the male line, Isaiah 7:14 shed the light when it proclaimed that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Satan's future was also revealed in this pronouncement that while the Messiah would be bruised in the heel (crucifixion), Satan would ultimately be dealt the final judgment and be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
On the Woman
There are 2 slightly differing interpretation of Genesis 3:16 (NKJV and NASB). NKJV seems to suggest that besides multiplying the labour pains, God has also multiplied menstrual pains and the ability to conceive. NASB has assumed that this verse is a hendiadys (a figure of speech used for emphasis) and thus interpreted as a single idea of labour pains.
The woman's relationship with her husband would also undergo a radical change as a result of the fall. Although God has ordained that the man will be the head of the partnership (and he will rule over you), the woman will attempt to overturn this (your desire will be for your husband). The word "desire" is not sexual but rather to control or dominate. This same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 4:7 in reference to sin's desire for Cain.
On the Man
God's judgment comprises (a) cursing of the earth [Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you], (b) human diet [you will eat the plants of the field], (c) hard labour [By the sweat of your face you will eat bread] and (d) physical death [Till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return].
Garment of Skin
The first record of physical death probably occurred at this point when God in His providence and care provided clothing made out of animal skin to replace the flimsy-made garment of fig leaves . Theologians also pointed to this passage as the first demonstration of God's demand for blood as a covering for sin. This theme would be further elaborated in the course of Biblical history.
Driven from the Garden of Eden
Even God's action to banish (literally driving out) Adam and Eve from the garden and the setting up of the cherubim to guard the tree of life can be seen as God's loving-kindness towards us. How? As sinners, the ability to live forever in a future that is bleak will certainly be a frightening thought. Think about someone like Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao Zedong living forever and you get the point.
The other point to note is the need to set up cherubim (meaning more than one cherub) and the flaming sword to guard the tree of life. Why was there a need to put the highest order of the angelic beings to guard it against man when one normal angel will do? Especially when one normal angel was able to send pestilence to destroy 70,000 people (2 Sam 24:10-17). The Bible doesn't say but God could be guarding it against Satan whom, before his own fall, was himself a cherub (Eze 28:12-19).
It was definitely a sad ending to what could have been a blessing for Adam and Eve but unconscious to them, God has already put in place the grand plan of salvation.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Genesis 2 - The Garden of Eden
Chapter Two of Genesis has been used by critics as the very first occurrence of inconsistency in the Bible. Some have gone on to conclude that the author must have collated 2 different account and clobbered them into one book in Genesis because they saw a different way that God was addressed in chapter 2 as compared with chapter 1 (See following section on this issue). Rather than jumping to conclusions, what we have here is a demonstration of what David Cooper termed as "the law of recurrence".
Before we go into this law of recurrence in Genesis, 2 prophetic examples can be found in the Bible (From Fruchtenbaum's "The Footsteps of the Messiah").
The first pair is found in Ezekiel 38 and Ezekiel 39. Chapter 39 gives a complete account of the invasion of Israel from the north and the subsequent destruction of the invading army. This is followed by Chapter 39 which repeats some of the account given in Chapter 38 and gives some added details regarding the description of the invading army.
The second pair is found in Isaiah 30 and Isaiah 31. Chapter 30 gives a complete account of the fall of Judah's alliance with Egypt. Chapter 31 simply repeats the prophesy, adding more details.
Turning back to Genesis 2, this chapter elaborates on Day 6 of God's creation and not, as some have tried to insinuate, a different version of the creation account. Other well-meaning Christians have "fall into" this trap hook-line-and-sinker and invested creative energy to try and explain away the apparent contradictions.
The Elaboration of the Creation of Man and Woman in Day 6
From Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4 (the beginning of the 2nd chapter should have logically started from here), the author took on a different way of addressing God by calling him Yahweh Elohim (or LORD God in NASB) instead of just Elohim (God) in Chapter 1. The purpose, I believed, is to introduce a personal reference of God to narrate the creation of Adam and Eve in this section. because God took a personal interest in Day 6 of creation.
What we have from verses 4-6 is a description of how a piece of land looked like before it was transformed by God to become the Garden of Eden. At this point in time, there was no rain yet and the earth was watered by a mist that rise from the earth itself.
Some may ask why Christians are so sure that Chapter 2 is purely elaborating on Day 6 of creation and describing on a particular place called Eden rather than a different creation account. The clue can be derived from verse 5 where it explained why no shrub and plant of the field had appeared in the earth. The 2 reasons were that (a) "God had not sent rain upon the earth" and (b) "there was no man to cultivate the ground".
If the appearance of shrubs and plants is dependent on the appearance of man, then we must conclude that the only place where God can cause them to appear is in the garden of Eden since we would not expect the first man to be able to cultivate the whole earth. This obviously cannot be true since God can cause life to appear without the help of man. The need for water was answered in verse 6 when it explained that "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground" (the highlighted words suggest that the author who wrote the book of Genesis did not experienced this phenomena anymore and it was so after the rain made its appearance from the time of the Noahic Flood).
Hence what verse 5 described would fit the context of a particular part of the earth and in this case, the land that God eventually plant the garden of Eden. The other clue came from verses 19-20 where though God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky out of the ground after forming Adam for him to name in verse 19, the cattle were already there in the garden for Adam to name in verse 20. Hence we can see that there is no contradiction that God indeed created the animals before man and that Chapter 2 was indeed an elaboration of Day 6 of creation.
Some will also attempt to cast doubt on this account as an elaboration of Day 6 of creation by asserting that it is impossible for so many things to happen in a single day especially for Adam to name all the animals. To me, this "problem" is not insurmountable. Firstly, God can definitely effect the creation works instantaneously. Second, Adam could be giving names to animal classes and not variants. He could be naming them ants, dogs or cats but not necessarily fire ants, termites etc. Furthermore, given his pre-fall status, his capacity to do all these in one day may not seem impossible.
In verse 7, the Bible elaborated how God created the first man. Though an elaboration, it was in keeping with the spirit of simplicity that it still took a mere verse to describe how God formed man from the dust of the earth and made the man into a living being by breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.
God then proceeded to plant the garden in Eden with "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food" (v 9). It is also at this point that we are introduced to the 2 special trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The Bible made it clear that the garden of Eden was not some mythical place when the author took a total of 5 verses (v 10-14) to describe the river which flows out of Eden to water the garden and how it is subsequently divided into 4 rivers which were described in some amount of details. We know that this garden was in the region of Mesopotamia since 2 of the rivers are known to us till this day (The Tigris and Euphrates).
The Edenic Covenant (Part 2)
In Chapter 2, we also have the 2nd part of the Edenic Covenant in verses 15-17 with the remaining 3 of the 7 provisions (we mentioned the first 4 in the previous post).
(5) Physical labour in the garden (to cultivate it and keep it).
(6) Permitted food (From any tree of the garden you may eat freely) and forbidden food (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat) in the garden.
(7) Penalty of disobedience (for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die)
We will revisit the details of the Edenic Covenant later on in Chapter 3 of the Genesis study.
Helper for Adam
While in the garden of Eden, God was the initiator when He noted that it was not good for man to be alone. While God in his infinite wisdom knew what Adam (man) needed was the woman, yet He did not "force" it onto Adam. As a living being with free will, Adam needs to discover for himself this inner need. Hence God set up this interesting exercise for Adam to select a helper from amongst the animals.
God did this by raising from the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them to Adam for him to name them. In the biblical context, naming is an exercise of authority and it validated man's authority over the animal kingdom. So, Adam gave names to 3 categories of animals: (a) the cattle (or domesticated animals) who were already in the garden and hence there was no need for God to bring them to Adam, (b) the beasts of the field (or wild animals) and (c) the birds of the sky. It was also in verse 20 where the man's name was first revealed as Adam.
This naming exercise obviously did the trick and after naming all the animals, Adam did not find a helper suitable for him in the animal kingdom and was still alone. Once Adam came to this personal realisation, God took over control, causing a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and formed a woman using portion of flesh and bone from Adam's side (NASB translated tsalah as rib but the Hebrew literally means side. It also fits verse 23 better where Adam described the woman as the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh).
When the woman was brought to Adam, he finally encountered the helper that was suitable for him and broke into a song in verse 23 and named God's special creation as "woman".
The First Spoken Language
It is interesting to take a slight digression here to discuss what was the first spoken language before God confused the language in Chapter 11 at Babel.
Fruchtenbaum made an interesting case that Adam was created with the ability to speak the Hebrew language. He made the argument on 2 points:
(a) All names before the Tower of Babel are Hebrew names and have meanings only in Hebrew even though the Jewish people did not exist as yet. That is not true of all names after the Tower of Babel when you have non Hebrew names.
(b) Prior to Babel all the wordplays in the Bible make sense only in Hebrew. Genesis 2:23; 3:20; 4:1 and 4:25 are all examples of Adam and Eve's use of wordplays that make sense only in Hebrew, proving that Adam's language was Hebrew.
Genesis 2:23 - She shall be called Woman (ishshah), Because she was taken out of Man (iysh).
Genesis 3:20 - Now the man called his wife's name Eve (chavvah), because she was the mother of all the living (chay).
Genesis 4:1 - Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain (qayin), and she said, "I have gotten (qanah) a manchild with the help of the LORD."
Genesis 4:25 - Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth (sheth), for, she said, "God has appointed (shiyth) me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."
While I do not know much about all the ancient languages, this postulation does have its merits and we can suggest that the original language at least bears resemblance to the Hebrew language.
The Meaning of Helper
Turning back to the study, feminists had a field day accusing the Bible for being patriarchal here by degrading woman to be a mere helper for the man.
This demeaning view of the word helper is unfortunate and I feel three points here are in order to refute this:
(1) The Hebrew word for helper is ezer. This same term is used to describe God in passages such as Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; I Samuel 7:12; Psalm 20:2; 33:20; 46:1; 70:5; 115:9-11; 124:8; and 146:5. Surely a term used to describe God should not be seen as demeaning.
(2) In Genesis 1:28, both man and woman were both recipients of God's mandate to exercise authority and dominion over the earth. Again, this would hardly be a degrading proposition for the first woman.
(3) The Hebrew word for suitable is neged which literally means "what is conspicuous, what is in front of". Taken in its entire context, the helper suitable for Adam implied a helper of his equal.
Fruchtenbaum concluded that the woman will be"one who will perfectly complete him, one who will provide what is lacking in the male, one who can do what the male cannot do alone. Man was created in such a way that he needs the help of a partner, and she corresponds physically, socially, and spiritually. There was headship before the fall, but it was complementary, not competitive.".
This symbiotic relationship between man and woman was reflected in verse 24 in which the final union between them will be the act of marriage to become one flesh.
An Ominous Statement
The final verse in Chapter 2 describing Adam and Eve's innocence (naked and not ashamed) was to become the preamble of the account of the Fall in Chapter 3.
Before we go into this law of recurrence in Genesis, 2 prophetic examples can be found in the Bible (From Fruchtenbaum's "The Footsteps of the Messiah").
The first pair is found in Ezekiel 38 and Ezekiel 39. Chapter 39 gives a complete account of the invasion of Israel from the north and the subsequent destruction of the invading army. This is followed by Chapter 39 which repeats some of the account given in Chapter 38 and gives some added details regarding the description of the invading army.
The second pair is found in Isaiah 30 and Isaiah 31. Chapter 30 gives a complete account of the fall of Judah's alliance with Egypt. Chapter 31 simply repeats the prophesy, adding more details.
Turning back to Genesis 2, this chapter elaborates on Day 6 of God's creation and not, as some have tried to insinuate, a different version of the creation account. Other well-meaning Christians have "fall into" this trap hook-line-and-sinker and invested creative energy to try and explain away the apparent contradictions.
The Elaboration of the Creation of Man and Woman in Day 6
From Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4 (the beginning of the 2nd chapter should have logically started from here), the author took on a different way of addressing God by calling him Yahweh Elohim (or LORD God in NASB) instead of just Elohim (God) in Chapter 1. The purpose, I believed, is to introduce a personal reference of God to narrate the creation of Adam and Eve in this section. because God took a personal interest in Day 6 of creation.
What we have from verses 4-6 is a description of how a piece of land looked like before it was transformed by God to become the Garden of Eden. At this point in time, there was no rain yet and the earth was watered by a mist that rise from the earth itself.
Some may ask why Christians are so sure that Chapter 2 is purely elaborating on Day 6 of creation and describing on a particular place called Eden rather than a different creation account. The clue can be derived from verse 5 where it explained why no shrub and plant of the field had appeared in the earth. The 2 reasons were that (a) "God had not sent rain upon the earth" and (b) "there was no man to cultivate the ground".
If the appearance of shrubs and plants is dependent on the appearance of man, then we must conclude that the only place where God can cause them to appear is in the garden of Eden since we would not expect the first man to be able to cultivate the whole earth. This obviously cannot be true since God can cause life to appear without the help of man. The need for water was answered in verse 6 when it explained that "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground" (the highlighted words suggest that the author who wrote the book of Genesis did not experienced this phenomena anymore and it was so after the rain made its appearance from the time of the Noahic Flood).
Hence what verse 5 described would fit the context of a particular part of the earth and in this case, the land that God eventually plant the garden of Eden. The other clue came from verses 19-20 where though God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky out of the ground after forming Adam for him to name in verse 19, the cattle were already there in the garden for Adam to name in verse 20. Hence we can see that there is no contradiction that God indeed created the animals before man and that Chapter 2 was indeed an elaboration of Day 6 of creation.
Some will also attempt to cast doubt on this account as an elaboration of Day 6 of creation by asserting that it is impossible for so many things to happen in a single day especially for Adam to name all the animals. To me, this "problem" is not insurmountable. Firstly, God can definitely effect the creation works instantaneously. Second, Adam could be giving names to animal classes and not variants. He could be naming them ants, dogs or cats but not necessarily fire ants, termites etc. Furthermore, given his pre-fall status, his capacity to do all these in one day may not seem impossible.
In verse 7, the Bible elaborated how God created the first man. Though an elaboration, it was in keeping with the spirit of simplicity that it still took a mere verse to describe how God formed man from the dust of the earth and made the man into a living being by breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.
God then proceeded to plant the garden in Eden with "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food" (v 9). It is also at this point that we are introduced to the 2 special trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The Bible made it clear that the garden of Eden was not some mythical place when the author took a total of 5 verses (v 10-14) to describe the river which flows out of Eden to water the garden and how it is subsequently divided into 4 rivers which were described in some amount of details. We know that this garden was in the region of Mesopotamia since 2 of the rivers are known to us till this day (The Tigris and Euphrates).
The Edenic Covenant (Part 2)
In Chapter 2, we also have the 2nd part of the Edenic Covenant in verses 15-17 with the remaining 3 of the 7 provisions (we mentioned the first 4 in the previous post).
(5) Physical labour in the garden (to cultivate it and keep it).
(6) Permitted food (From any tree of the garden you may eat freely) and forbidden food (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat) in the garden.
(7) Penalty of disobedience (for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die)
We will revisit the details of the Edenic Covenant later on in Chapter 3 of the Genesis study.
Helper for Adam
While in the garden of Eden, God was the initiator when He noted that it was not good for man to be alone. While God in his infinite wisdom knew what Adam (man) needed was the woman, yet He did not "force" it onto Adam. As a living being with free will, Adam needs to discover for himself this inner need. Hence God set up this interesting exercise for Adam to select a helper from amongst the animals.
God did this by raising from the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them to Adam for him to name them. In the biblical context, naming is an exercise of authority and it validated man's authority over the animal kingdom. So, Adam gave names to 3 categories of animals: (a) the cattle (or domesticated animals) who were already in the garden and hence there was no need for God to bring them to Adam, (b) the beasts of the field (or wild animals) and (c) the birds of the sky. It was also in verse 20 where the man's name was first revealed as Adam.
This naming exercise obviously did the trick and after naming all the animals, Adam did not find a helper suitable for him in the animal kingdom and was still alone. Once Adam came to this personal realisation, God took over control, causing a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and formed a woman using portion of flesh and bone from Adam's side (NASB translated tsalah as rib but the Hebrew literally means side. It also fits verse 23 better where Adam described the woman as the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh).
When the woman was brought to Adam, he finally encountered the helper that was suitable for him and broke into a song in verse 23 and named God's special creation as "woman".
The First Spoken Language
It is interesting to take a slight digression here to discuss what was the first spoken language before God confused the language in Chapter 11 at Babel.
Fruchtenbaum made an interesting case that Adam was created with the ability to speak the Hebrew language. He made the argument on 2 points:
(a) All names before the Tower of Babel are Hebrew names and have meanings only in Hebrew even though the Jewish people did not exist as yet. That is not true of all names after the Tower of Babel when you have non Hebrew names.
(b) Prior to Babel all the wordplays in the Bible make sense only in Hebrew. Genesis 2:23; 3:20; 4:1 and 4:25 are all examples of Adam and Eve's use of wordplays that make sense only in Hebrew, proving that Adam's language was Hebrew.
Genesis 2:23 - She shall be called Woman (ishshah), Because she was taken out of Man (iysh).
Genesis 3:20 - Now the man called his wife's name Eve (chavvah), because she was the mother of all the living (chay).
Genesis 4:1 - Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain (qayin), and she said, "I have gotten (qanah) a manchild with the help of the LORD."
Genesis 4:25 - Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth (sheth), for, she said, "God has appointed (shiyth) me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."
While I do not know much about all the ancient languages, this postulation does have its merits and we can suggest that the original language at least bears resemblance to the Hebrew language.
The Meaning of Helper
Turning back to the study, feminists had a field day accusing the Bible for being patriarchal here by degrading woman to be a mere helper for the man.
This demeaning view of the word helper is unfortunate and I feel three points here are in order to refute this:
(1) The Hebrew word for helper is ezer. This same term is used to describe God in passages such as Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; I Samuel 7:12; Psalm 20:2; 33:20; 46:1; 70:5; 115:9-11; 124:8; and 146:5. Surely a term used to describe God should not be seen as demeaning.
(2) In Genesis 1:28, both man and woman were both recipients of God's mandate to exercise authority and dominion over the earth. Again, this would hardly be a degrading proposition for the first woman.
(3) The Hebrew word for suitable is neged which literally means "what is conspicuous, what is in front of". Taken in its entire context, the helper suitable for Adam implied a helper of his equal.
Fruchtenbaum concluded that the woman will be"one who will perfectly complete him, one who will provide what is lacking in the male, one who can do what the male cannot do alone. Man was created in such a way that he needs the help of a partner, and she corresponds physically, socially, and spiritually. There was headship before the fall, but it was complementary, not competitive.".
This symbiotic relationship between man and woman was reflected in verse 24 in which the final union between them will be the act of marriage to become one flesh.
An Ominous Statement
The final verse in Chapter 2 describing Adam and Eve's innocence (naked and not ashamed) was to become the preamble of the account of the Fall in Chapter 3.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Genesis 1 - In the Beginning
Other than the Gospels, Genesis chapter one is probably the most dissected chapter of the Bible. It is also one chapter that has been ridiculed and poured scorn upon by non Christians and many have tried to link the Biblical creation account to other mythical accounts.
However, reading through chapter one, one does not find in the account many of the embellishments that you find in other mythical accounts. There was no epic battle of good-versus-evil, teardrops becoming the ocean etc. The Biblical account is a simple matter-of-fact narration of how God brought the heavens and earth into being. It introduced God as having existed before time and space, and in the same way, there was no embellishment of what God looked like. God is Spirit and that was it.
Leaving the “gap theory” which I described in a previous post, the earth started out as a planet which is covered entirely by water and darkness was over the surface of the deep (v 2).
The Creation Account and Sequence
The sequence of creation was then narrated:
(1) Light (Day and Night) - Some have identified this light as the Shechinah or the Glory of God's Presence.
(2) Expanse / Firmament (heaven)
(3) Dry Land (earth) and Gathering of the Waters (seas)
(4) Vegetation: Plants Yielding Seed and Fruit Trees on the Earth bearing fruits with seed in them, after their kind
(5) Lights in the expanse: Sun, Moon and Stars
(6) Swarms of living creatures in the waters and Winged Birds, after their kind
(7) Beasts of the earth (wild animals), Cattle (domesticated animals) and Everything that creeps on the ground (reptiles and amphibians), after their kind
(8) Man and Woman
It is not my intention to debate on the sequence of God’s creation. There will be questions on what was the light that God created if the sun, moon and stars were created on the 3rd day, how the plants survived without the sun, how the solar system be sustained with the Earth created before the sun, moon and stars etc. To me, these questions are rather superfluous. To those who do not believe in the supernatural, the first action would be a denial of God’s existence from the beginning. To those who can entertain the concept of supernatural, it would not be too difficult to believe a God who can create out of nothing could temporarily create the necessary conditions to answer these questions.
No Room for Theistic Evolution
God seemed to have the evolution advocates in mind in the very first chapter of the Bible by making 2 clear statements repeatedly:
(a) Each of the days of creation was a 24-hours day. Genesis Chapter One was deliberate to a fault by repeating the constant refrain - “and there was evening and there was morning, one (and a second, and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth and the sixth) day”. Even without the sun, moon and stars on the first three days, the refrain was constant - they were all 24-hours day. Some have, interestingly, decided that since the sun, moon and stars were created on the third day, that Day 1, 2 and 3 need not be 24-hour days. Most of them subscribe to this view because of their need to entertain what they felt are irrefutable "proofs" that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. They pointed that Moses had no choice but to use the same term "day" to describe Day 1-3 or that he wanted to maintain the consistent literary structure of the creation account. I feel that we should let the plain text speak for itself and there is no need to artificially differentiate the term "day" within the same passage. If you are not convinced, then I suggest you consider what the same Moses said further down in Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(b) The strict biological taxonomy was deliberately emphasized. The plants yielding seed, fruit trees bearing fruits with seed in them, swarms of living creatures in the waters, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the ground were all created after their kinds (species).
These 2 statements set up the case against the theory (I rather call it a hypothesis since it cannot be experimentally tested to become a theory) of evolution in that the Bible does not give it the time or the space to stand.
Interesting Trivia
Some interesting trivia in the creation account can be noted here:
(a) God declared the work done by Him as good with the exception of Day 2 when He created the expanse (firmament) which was called heaven. Some have expounded on the reasons why this was so but a simple explanation would be that God did not "finish" what he started on the second day. The making of the expanse, the gathering of the waters below the expanse and the appearing of the dry land was deemed as one "complete" activity. Which also explained why God "saw that it was good" twice in Day 3.
(b) The uniqueness of Day 6 of creation was noted in the way the writer of Genesis described the end of that particular day. Unlike the first 5 days, the end of the 6th day was mentioned with the definite article the, pointing to the uniqueness of this day when man was created. It was also Day 6 that not only God declared what He as created as not just good but very good.
The Plurality of the Godhead
The concept of the ONE Godhead and the PLURALITY of the Godhead is introduced at the very first chapter of the Bible.
- The Hebrew word translated as God in English is “elohim”, which is plural form of “El” or “Eloah” - God. While it is true that “elohim” can also be used in the form of plurality in majesty, this term does introduce the possibility of the plurality of the Godhead.
- The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit?) was described as moving over (or hovering) over the surface of the waters.
- In the creation of man, God is quoted as saying: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (v 26). At the same time, in the very next verse, Genesis recorded that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”.
God’s Mandate for Mankind
The uniqueness of man (and woman) in comparison with other living things that God has created can be seen in 2 aspects: (1) that man was the only living organism that God was said to have created in His image and (2) man was given dominion over the rest of God’s creation.
It was here that the Edenic Covenant was made between God and Adam (part 2 of the covenant is given in Gen 2:15-17) in which Adam stood as the representative head of the human race.
The covenant consisted of seven provisions of which 4 are mentioned in Chapter One:
(1) Man was told to populate the earth (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth).
(2) Man was given authority over the earth (Subdue it [the earth]).
(3) Exercise dominion over all living things (Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth).
(4) Vegetarian diet for mankind and animals (v 29-30).
Completion of God's Creation (Chapter 2 Verses 1-3)
With the creation of man and woman, the heavens and earth were declared as "completed" and God rested on the 7th day. He also blessed and sanctified the 7th Day because in that day, God rested from all His work.
2 points should be noted here:
(1) Some commentators go into a deep theological discussion on whether we are still in the 7th Day given that the Bible did not do its previous refrain of "and there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day". I think this is unnecessary since God did not do any more creating on the 7th day and hence there was no reason to reiterate the 24-hour day again. Furthermore, Chapter 1 should have logically been extended to Chapter 2 verse 3. Hence at the end point, there was no need to say anymore. (See my blog in Chapter 5 for the divisions of Genesis).
(2) Some have also wondered whether God indeed was omnipotent since He was described as having a need to rest from His works. Again, this is unnecessary since what we have here is a case of anthropomorphism, in this case, applying human characteristics to God. If we need the Bible to convince us that God is not resting in the sense of being made tired by all the creation work, Isaiah 40:28a tells us:
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired.
Thus ends the creation of the heavens and the earth.
However, reading through chapter one, one does not find in the account many of the embellishments that you find in other mythical accounts. There was no epic battle of good-versus-evil, teardrops becoming the ocean etc. The Biblical account is a simple matter-of-fact narration of how God brought the heavens and earth into being. It introduced God as having existed before time and space, and in the same way, there was no embellishment of what God looked like. God is Spirit and that was it.
Leaving the “gap theory” which I described in a previous post, the earth started out as a planet which is covered entirely by water and darkness was over the surface of the deep (v 2).
The Creation Account and Sequence
The sequence of creation was then narrated:
(1) Light (Day and Night) - Some have identified this light as the Shechinah or the Glory of God's Presence.
(2) Expanse / Firmament (heaven)
(3) Dry Land (earth) and Gathering of the Waters (seas)
(4) Vegetation: Plants Yielding Seed and Fruit Trees on the Earth bearing fruits with seed in them, after their kind
(5) Lights in the expanse: Sun, Moon and Stars
(6) Swarms of living creatures in the waters and Winged Birds, after their kind
(7) Beasts of the earth (wild animals), Cattle (domesticated animals) and Everything that creeps on the ground (reptiles and amphibians), after their kind
(8) Man and Woman
It is not my intention to debate on the sequence of God’s creation. There will be questions on what was the light that God created if the sun, moon and stars were created on the 3rd day, how the plants survived without the sun, how the solar system be sustained with the Earth created before the sun, moon and stars etc. To me, these questions are rather superfluous. To those who do not believe in the supernatural, the first action would be a denial of God’s existence from the beginning. To those who can entertain the concept of supernatural, it would not be too difficult to believe a God who can create out of nothing could temporarily create the necessary conditions to answer these questions.
No Room for Theistic Evolution
God seemed to have the evolution advocates in mind in the very first chapter of the Bible by making 2 clear statements repeatedly:
(a) Each of the days of creation was a 24-hours day. Genesis Chapter One was deliberate to a fault by repeating the constant refrain - “and there was evening and there was morning, one (and a second, and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth and the sixth) day”. Even without the sun, moon and stars on the first three days, the refrain was constant - they were all 24-hours day. Some have, interestingly, decided that since the sun, moon and stars were created on the third day, that Day 1, 2 and 3 need not be 24-hour days. Most of them subscribe to this view because of their need to entertain what they felt are irrefutable "proofs" that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. They pointed that Moses had no choice but to use the same term "day" to describe Day 1-3 or that he wanted to maintain the consistent literary structure of the creation account. I feel that we should let the plain text speak for itself and there is no need to artificially differentiate the term "day" within the same passage. If you are not convinced, then I suggest you consider what the same Moses said further down in Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(b) The strict biological taxonomy was deliberately emphasized. The plants yielding seed, fruit trees bearing fruits with seed in them, swarms of living creatures in the waters, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the ground were all created after their kinds (species).
These 2 statements set up the case against the theory (I rather call it a hypothesis since it cannot be experimentally tested to become a theory) of evolution in that the Bible does not give it the time or the space to stand.
Interesting Trivia
Some interesting trivia in the creation account can be noted here:
(a) God declared the work done by Him as good with the exception of Day 2 when He created the expanse (firmament) which was called heaven. Some have expounded on the reasons why this was so but a simple explanation would be that God did not "finish" what he started on the second day. The making of the expanse, the gathering of the waters below the expanse and the appearing of the dry land was deemed as one "complete" activity. Which also explained why God "saw that it was good" twice in Day 3.
(b) The uniqueness of Day 6 of creation was noted in the way the writer of Genesis described the end of that particular day. Unlike the first 5 days, the end of the 6th day was mentioned with the definite article the, pointing to the uniqueness of this day when man was created. It was also Day 6 that not only God declared what He as created as not just good but very good.
The Plurality of the Godhead
The concept of the ONE Godhead and the PLURALITY of the Godhead is introduced at the very first chapter of the Bible.
- The Hebrew word translated as God in English is “elohim”, which is plural form of “El” or “Eloah” - God. While it is true that “elohim” can also be used in the form of plurality in majesty, this term does introduce the possibility of the plurality of the Godhead.
- The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit?) was described as moving over (or hovering) over the surface of the waters.
- In the creation of man, God is quoted as saying: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (v 26). At the same time, in the very next verse, Genesis recorded that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”.
God’s Mandate for Mankind
The uniqueness of man (and woman) in comparison with other living things that God has created can be seen in 2 aspects: (1) that man was the only living organism that God was said to have created in His image and (2) man was given dominion over the rest of God’s creation.
It was here that the Edenic Covenant was made between God and Adam (part 2 of the covenant is given in Gen 2:15-17) in which Adam stood as the representative head of the human race.
The covenant consisted of seven provisions of which 4 are mentioned in Chapter One:
(1) Man was told to populate the earth (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth).
(2) Man was given authority over the earth (Subdue it [the earth]).
(3) Exercise dominion over all living things (Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth).
(4) Vegetarian diet for mankind and animals (v 29-30).
Completion of God's Creation (Chapter 2 Verses 1-3)
With the creation of man and woman, the heavens and earth were declared as "completed" and God rested on the 7th day. He also blessed and sanctified the 7th Day because in that day, God rested from all His work.
2 points should be noted here:
(1) Some commentators go into a deep theological discussion on whether we are still in the 7th Day given that the Bible did not do its previous refrain of "and there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day". I think this is unnecessary since God did not do any more creating on the 7th day and hence there was no reason to reiterate the 24-hour day again. Furthermore, Chapter 1 should have logically been extended to Chapter 2 verse 3. Hence at the end point, there was no need to say anymore. (See my blog in Chapter 5 for the divisions of Genesis).
(2) Some have also wondered whether God indeed was omnipotent since He was described as having a need to rest from His works. Again, this is unnecessary since what we have here is a case of anthropomorphism, in this case, applying human characteristics to God. If we need the Bible to convince us that God is not resting in the sense of being made tired by all the creation work, Isaiah 40:28a tells us:
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired.
Thus ends the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)