The Christmas Story Clarified

Christmas has from long ago been "taken over" by non-Christians as their own with the santa claus, decorative trees, reindeers, presents, good food and wine.  Even in Singapore, Christmas has been adopted by many as their own with an intensity not shared by other public religious holidays like Hari Raya Puasa/Haji, Deepavali and Vesak Day.  One miffed Singaporean Christian (I imagined) actually wrote to the Straits Times Forum to complain about SMRT's lack of sensitivity by actually censoring Christmas and putting up a banner with the more generic and I guessed more politically correct, "Happy Holidays". 

Perhaps Christians should be "honoured" that non-Christians choose to adopt the Christmas and Easter (I guess even non-Christians find it too morbid to adopt Good Friday since it is essentially remembering Jesus' death on the Cross) but then again, it could be just a case of of "anglophile" since Halloween seems to be catching on in Singapore as well with NTUC jumping onto the bandwagon by selling pumpkins and costumes in their stores.

What's interesting to me is that Christians themselves are sometimes none the wiser about their Biblical heritage and the traditional Nativity scene probably says it best.

(1) The shepherds were probably to only one that got to baby Jesus when he was born in the manger (Luke 2:15-20). 

(2) There were no "Three Kings".  They were the wise men from the east (magi) and there was no mention that there were three of them.  People assumed that there were three of them given the 3 gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh presented to Jesus. 

(3) The magi did not get to meet the sherpherds.  The Bible recorded that they visited Joseph, Mary and Jesus in a "house", not a "manger" (Matthew 2:9-11). 

(4) There wasn't a physical star that guided the magi to the house.  If it was a physical star, the people there would not have lived to tell the tale based on the descriptions in Matthew Chapter 2.  First the magi said they saw "His [Jesus] star in the east and have come to worship Him" and then this star "which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was".  I majored in physics in my undergraduate days.  Anyone in my class would have told you that no physical star can do such things.  Even as a lay person, I cannot imagine how a star can go before you to bring you to a specific place and stand over a particular house to mark it for you.  A more plausible explanation is that the star is probably a reference to an angel that guided the magi to the house where Jesus was staying then.  The Bible is littered with references of stars being symbols for angels (see Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:12).  There is even a specific description of stars being a symbol of angels in Revelation 1:20. 

(5) Jesus would probably be 2 years-old or younger when the magi came since Herod ordered the massacre of children "who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi".

(6) The gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh was God's provision for Joseph and Mary to seek refuge in Egypt during the reign of Herod till he passed away as a result of the persecution.

(7) And, by the way, contrary to popular belief and the many Christmas carols (like "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing", "Angels We Have Heard On High"), the angels that appeared on the first Christmas did not do any singing.

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:13-14)

Blessed Christmas to all!

Genesis 5 - The Genealogy (and the Records of the Generations)

I thought that I would like to explain the long hiatus between the entry between Genesis Chapter 3 and 4.

First, I was busy with work. During this period, I bought a Genesis commentary penned by Arnold Fruchtenbaum and I took some time to finish reading it.

Anyway, it was a good thing as I have picked up an interesting insight on how Genesis was compiled by Moses. Moses authorship of the Tanach was already authenticated by Jesus in the New Testament. I think that is sufficient. Fruchtenbaum mentioned in his commentary that Genesis was a compilation of 11 books or records of Toldah ("genealogies" or "generations") as follows:

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 - Prologue

Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 - Records of Generations of the Heavens and the Earth

Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 - Records of Generations of Adam

Genesis 6:9 to 9:29 - Records of Generations of Noah

Genesis 10:1 to 11:9 - Records of the Generations of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons born to them after the flood

Genesis 11:10 to 11:26 - Records of the Generations of Shem

Genesis 11:27 to 25:11 - Records of the Generations of Terah

Genesis 25:12 to 25:18 - Records of the Generations of Ishmael

Genesis 25:19 to 35:29 - Records of the Generations of Isaac

Genesis 36:1 to 36:8 - Records of the Generations of Esau

Genesis 36:9 to 37:1 - Records of the Generations of Esau (Edom)

Genesis 37:2 to 50:26 - Records of the Generations of Jacob

Reading Genesis based on this structure will help clarify many issues, one which I had discussed earlier was on the supposed two creation accounts and the other, we will discuss in Chapter 6 about Noah.

Chapter 5 began the 2nd Toldah of Genesis - that of Adam. Here the chapter traces the genealogy of Adam all the way to Noah.

Many people have used this genealogy to make the case that there are missing links to justify an older Earth but the important thing to note here is that specifically for this genealogy in Chapter 5, there is no room to make the case (there will of course be other genealogies with "gaps" in them). The reason being that for each of the "father", this chapter listed the age of the father before the "son" was born. Hence this chapter listed a strictly direct lineage.

The 10 generations are as follows:

Adam (930 years old) - Man

Seth (912 years old) - Appointed

Enosh (905 years old) - Man frail and miserable or Mortal

Kenan (910 years old) - Propagate, Increase

Mahalalel (895 years old) - Praise of God

Jared (962 years old) - Descent, Come down

Enoch (365 years old*) - Initiated, Dedicated or Instruct, Make Wise

Methuselah (969 years old) - [His] Death, shall bring

Lamech (777 years old) - Strong Youth or To Make Low

Noah (950 years old) - Rest, Comfort


Putting them in a chart (from www.creationscience.com), we have the following:

Chuck Missler claimed that there is a redemption message hidden in this genealogy but it seems to be a stretch based on the commonly accepted interpretations which I have listed above. Two names are particularly problematic for Missler - Kenan and Lamech. Hence I will not make too much out of Missler's interpretation.

Having said that, even with the "conventional" interpretations listed above, we can still derive a form of the redemptive message. Again, we should not be dogmatic about this other than to note that it is just a possibility given that the meaning of some of the proper names cannot be determined with a high degree of certainty.

Nevertheless, we can make the following key observations on the supposedly "boring" genealogy in Chapter 5:

(a) First thing we can note is that all the people of the pre-flood era lived very long lives, up to 800-900 years. This was reduced dramatically post-flood by 50% for Noah's immediate children (400-500 years) and another 50% within the 2nd generation (200-250 years). The general consensus is that the pre-flood environment seems to be conducive for greater longevity. While some have also speculated that sin and the inter-breeding at this stage contributed to the decreasing ages, the genealogy in Chapter 5 of the first 10 generations does not bear this out, with Lamech as the sole exception.

(b) Two persons stand out in this geneology. The first is Enoch for several reasons: (1) He was the only one mentioned in the geneology to have "walked with God"; (2) His death was not recorded but the Bible said that "God took him", introducing the concept of translation which was to be repeated for Elijah and the believers before the Tribulation; (3) Enoch was the first recognised prophet in the Bible according to Jude (v14-15); (4) The prophetic message was imbued in Enoch's son, Methuselah, whose name meant "[his] death, shall bring". In fact, his death triggered the flood (see chart above); (5) The book of Hebrews also listed Enoch as a man of faith: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.  And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. [Hebrews 11:5-6]

(c) It is of interest to note that Methuselah has the longest recorded life (969 years) in the Bible, showing God's patience with his creation.

(d) Similar to the observations of word plays in the earlier chapters, while the meanings of the names are not altogether certain, what is certain is that they are Hebrew names, indicating that the first language was the Hebrew in orign.

(e) Adam lived till the time that Lamech was 56 years old. This meant that the accounts of creation and early lives were able to be transmitted faithfully all the way up to Noah's time.

(f) The genealogy is a historical fact attested to by later biblical writers (1 Chronicles 1:1-4, Luke 3:36-38) and there is no need to allegorise the list or speculate about the particular numbers with regards to the ages of the people listed.

Chapter 5 ends with the introduction of the main character who will dominate the next 4 chapters, Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Genesis 4 - Things Fall Apart

Things certainly went on a freefall after the original sin of Adam and Eve. In Chapter 4 alone, we have the world's first murder and first recorded bigamy.

Cain and Abel

Eve made an interesting comment when Cain was born. She probably assumed that Cain was the promised seed that God had mentioned in Chapter 3. Hence the naming of Cain ("possession" or "acquire"). Perhaps Cain did not match up to Eve's expectation in his life and when the 2nd child was born, Eve gave him the name Abel which meant breathe or vapour and probably alluded to the vanity of her hopes that Cain was the seed child.

The Sacrifice

There seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the occupation of Cain (tiller of the ground) and Abel (keeper of flocks), and the meaning of the sacrifices that they had made. Some tried to make the case that blood sacrifices were required from the beginning while others, who were keen to divorce themselves from Israel and Mosaic Laws, made the case that it was the either the value of the gift (firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions [Abel] versus fruit of the ground [Cain]) or the attitude of the giver (Heb 11:4) that was the key point here.

I would lean towards the view that God had already set the basic fundamentals of the sacrificial system which was to become the Mosaic Law in the future. Why? I take my reference from the point that Noah knew about which animals are clean and which are unclean before the advent of the Flood (Gen 7:2-3).

Whatever your point of view, the bottomline was that Cain and Abel knew exactly what God's requirements of the sacrifice were. While Abel's sacrifice met with God's approval, Cain's did not. How did the two of them know which sacrifice did God accept? One speculation was that God consumed the sacrifice that was deemed acceptable (see 1 Kings 18:38 and 2 Chron 7:1)

Given God's omniscience and foreknowledge, He nonetheless held out hope that Cain would not do what he eventually did. God first asked Cain to reflect on his anger (If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted?), warned him not to escalate his anger into sinful actions (sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you) and urged him not to succumb (but you must master it).

The First Murder

Unfortunately, Cain chose otherwise. Verse 8 started abruptly and you wonder what exactly did Cain told Abel. The Septuagint and some translations (NRSV and NET) cleared up the "mystery" and reflected Cain telling Abel to go out to the field. The purpose? To rise against his brother Abel and kill him.

Even after Cain had crossed the line, I believed God still held out hope that Cain would come clean with what he had done. God could have directly indicted Cain for what he had done but chose to ask Cain to come clean by asking him where Abel was (verse 9) [and not as some has suggested - that God did not know what Cain had done]. Unfortunately, Cain again chose otherwise and denied any knowledge of what he had done. God's indictment of Cain was immediate and since capital punishment was not mandated till Chapter 9:6 after the flood, Cain's punishment is ironically that the ground in which he tilled would no longer bear fruits for him and that Cain would be a vagrant and wanderer on the earth.

Cain's reaction baffles me. Instead of being contrite, he complained to God that it was too great a punishment and rightly feared for his life against those who would want to seek revenge for Abel's murder. God, in his lovingkindness, gave His personal assurance to Cain that he would not be harmed and appointed a sign for Cain to ensure his safety. There has been much speculations on what this sign was but I personally think that there is no point trying to figure this out since we will have no way to determine one way or the other. More importantly, I don't think this is what God wants us to focus our mental efforts on.

Why did God not demand for the capital punishment to be imposed on Cain? At this point of human history, there was only Adam, Eve and Cain. In order to impose capital punishment, either God Himself or the parents would have to do the deed. God not doing it and Him not imposing Adam and Eve to kill their only surviving son then both demonstrated His lovingkindness.  

Abel seems to be a footnote of the the Biblical characters but God ensured that Abel's name was mentioned:

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. [Hebrews 11:4]

Cain's Descendants

Verse 16 mentioned that Cain went out from God's presence and this could possibly mean that Cain's lineage was no longer under God's personal protection and care. From here, Cain moved east of Eden, settled in the land of Nod, found a wife, had a son Enoch (meaning consecrated or dedicated), built a city and named it after his son. This presented a strange situation since Cain was destined to lead a wandering lifestyle. In Hebrew, the word built is translated from בּנה (banah). The word allows for the expression to mean "to begin to build". This is further strengthened by the word היה (hayah), which on most occasions translate to the word "it came to pass". In summary, Cain probably begin to build the city in defiance of God's decree and had to leave it to Enoch to finish building the city named after him, perhaps as a result of Cain having to continue his vagrant life.

7 generations of Cain's line was mentioned:

Cain (possession)

Enoch (consecrated)

Irad (city dweller or fugitive)

Mehujael (blotted out by God)

Methushael (traditionally, man of God)

Lamech (warrior or strong youth)

Jabal (flowing stream or to bring forth), Jubal (flowing stream or to bring forth), Tubal-Cain (bring forth a possession) and Naamah (pleasant or sweet).

[If you still haven't know where Cain got his wife, you can check out here.]

Several observations can be derived from the geneology:

(1) Despite God's decree regarding Cain, 2 names (Enoch and Methushael) seem to indicate that there were descendants from the Cain line that believed in God. This will also help us better understand verse 26 later.

(2) Of interest are the 3 sons of Lamech. Contrary to anthropologists, within seven generations, human beings have discovered bronze/iron work, wide-scale animal rearing and music.

(3) Lamech was the Bible's first recorded bigamist. His wives were Adah (ornament) and Zillah (shade or shadow).

Lamech's poem in verse 23-24 reflects also the rapid degeneration of the human beings in its morals and statement of arrogance and rebellion. Hebrew poetry is not constructed based on rhymes but on similar meaning couplets. Here, there are 3 couplets:

Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech,

For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;

If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.

Starting Again

After the death of Abel, Adam and Eve conceived Seth (meaning appointed) and Eve herself named him, saying that God had appointed him to be Abel's replacement. Seth then produced a son, Enosh (meaning man frail and miserable or mortal). Even within the 3rd generation from Adam, the effects of the Fall seemed to have been fully felt by the people.

A Strange Epilogue

Many commentaries seemed to stumble over the meaning of verse 26:

To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Given that Cain and Abel were already bring sacrifices to God, it seemed strange that it was only during Enosh's generation that men began to call upon God's name. Many tried to harmonise this by speculating that it was during Enosh's time that formal or corporate worship took root.

I personally think this is unnecessary. If you take a look at the Strong's Concordance or Brown-Driver-Briggs' (BDB) Hebrew definition, the Hebrew word for call (qara, קרא, H7121) has the meaning of "to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim". What is interesting is that both references pointed to a primitive root from which this word comes - (qara, קרא, H7122):Strong: A primitive root; to encounter, whether accidentally or in a hostile manner: - befall, (by) chance, (cause to) come (upon), fall out, happen, meet.
BDB: to encounter, befall, meet

Both alluded to a negative connotation to the word translated as "call". Hence, I will go out on a limb here to suggest that instead of translating verse 26 as "Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD", this should be translated as "Then men began to profane the name of the LORD".

This makes for a more logical flow that by Enosh's time, people began to turn away from God, the beginning of apostasy.

As we shall see in Chapter 6 later, this will culminate in God's judgment of the world.

AWARE Saga (Part 2)

The second of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I refer to the ST Editorial on the recent MOE's suspension of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by external vendors, particularly that by AWARE, and wish to highlight some of the misconceptions perpetuated by both AWARE and ST.

Firstly, post-65er parents like myself are not rubbishing the entire CSE syllabus as it currently stands nor are we advocating an abstinence-only syllabus for sexuality education. If this was the case, we would have objected to the teaching of condom use and the role playing training in teaching a teenage girl how to persuade her partner to put on a condom before sex. This is also to assure current AWARE president Dana Lam that we are “not going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries”.

We recognised the importance of such teachings since, despite our best intentions and advice, our children faced real internal and peer pressures to keep up with current trends and fads. Our issue with the CSE syllabus, as advocated by AWARE, is their insistence on introducing value-loaded statements contrary to existing societal and moral norms such as “anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom”, “pain ... becomes positive when there is mutual consent and pleasure” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal ... it's simply the way you are”.

Secondly, contrary to what AWARE and ST would want Singaporeans to take away, these statements are not merely references in the AWARE CSE trainer guide that are not communicated to the students. The quoted statements above came from the ice-breaking activity module where trainers are instructed to ask the students to categorise 20 sexuality terms as positive, neutral or negative. In fact, if the students are 12-13 years-old, the trainers “must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used”. The level of flexibility the trainers have is best inferred from one of the interview questions posed to these trainers - “Do you feel comfortable presenting on material you don’t necessarily agree with?”.

As MOE reviews its internal vetting processes, it should also look into the track record of the external vendors providing such services to see if it conforms to existing societal norms. Beyond the actual CSE syllabus, AWARE's, as well as other external vendor's, continued participation in the schools' CSE programme would need to be scrutinised based on their espoused values, background and wider advocacy focus.

AWARE Saga (Part 1)

This is the first of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I would like to share my perspective surrounding the recent AWARE saga.

It seems to me that AWARE has been caught up, “blissfully” unaware, in the battle between conservatives and liberals till now. Whatever good works AWARE had done for gender equality in the past 25 years have been hijacked by 2 fringe issues – homosexuality and the approach to sex education.

Whether because of its inclusivity, liberalism or camaraderie, AWARE has thrown its weight, back in 2006/2007, with local NGOs such as Action for Aids, Free Community Church and People Like Us (PLU) to campaign actively for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Former AWARE President, Tan Joo Hymn, said then, “how consenting adults choose to express their sexuality in private should not be a concern of the state… we should be mature enough not to pry into the intimate behaviours of consenting adults”.

Similarly, in the area of sex education, AWARE’s position has been to adopt a “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) rather than a pure abstinence approach for teens. Former AWARE President, Constance Singam, said that CSE was to “equip young women aged 12-19 with the knowledge and skills to make healthy decisions about their lives”.

Mr Ho Chi Sam summarised this most succinctly in his online ST Forum letter (14 Apr 09) when he reduced the AWARE saga to these 2 fringe issues.

The new AWARE EXCO, whatever their motives and methods, probably felt that AWARE should not allow itself to be hijacked by these fringe issues and sought, through existing AWARE constitutional processes, to campaign for the society’s leadership and re-focus the organisation back to its original vision of “gender equality for all”.

While former AWARE President, Dana Lim, could state that “ AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality”, its public stand has stated unequivocally that AWARE is for homosexuality and AWARE is against what Christianity stands for.

However the AWARE saga pans out, the damage to the society has been done. The Old Guard could wrestle AWARE back from the Young Turks but the Old Guard would need to convince Singaporeans that AWARE have the wider interests of women at the heart of their mission and not just on these fringe issues.