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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
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.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Bible Gap Theory
The Bible can be an extremely fascinating treasure of insights if one spends time to study it.
In Ezekiel 28:11-19, God spoke about Satan's state before he fell from grace. We know that this king of Tyre wasn't human because Ezekiel has already spoken about the human king of Tyre in verses 1-10 whom God called the leader (or prince) of Tyre. There, all the descriptions was decidedly human in nature. When we moved to verses 11-19, the king of Tyre was described in decidedly angelic form.
Here, God described Satan's dwelling place before his fall as being in the garden of Eden. However, this garden is totally different from the one that Adam and Eve were given by God. In Satan's case, he was in a garden filled with many different types of precious stones. It was also in this garden that Satan's pride got the better of him (see Isaiah 14:12-14) and he declared war against God . Verse 18 in Ezekiel went on to say that the earth became waste and void.
This was probably the context that Genesis began with.
[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)
In this 2 short verses, we can deduce that there there was possibly a gap of time between verse 1 and 2. The evidence can be found in Isaiah 45:18 which says:
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),
If God did not create the earth as a waste place, then it is strange indeed that Genesis described the earth as formless and void (or in an alternative NASB translation, waste and emptiness). The question to ask is whether God created the earth in a state of chaos (which Isaiah 45:18 disproved) or did it became a state of chaos (which Ezekiel 28:18 provided for such a possibility).
Furthermore, the Hebrew word describing formless/waste (tohu) and void/emptiness (bohu) were used together only in two other Old Testament passages and both pointed to the concept of divine judgment (Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23).
But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation [tohu] And the plumb line of emptiness [bohu]. (Isa 34:11)
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless [tohu] and void [bohu]; And to the heavens, and they had no light. (Jer 4:23)
Finally, the Hebrew word that was translated as "was" in Genesis 1:2 (The earth was formless and void) is hayah which can be translated as "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out". Hence the verse can be translated as "The earth became formless and void".
Hence, we can deduce that the fall of Satan occurred between Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2. This is the Bible Gap Theory to account for the fall of Satan and the description of the earth in a state of waste and emptiness. However, this gap is not to be confused with the one which some used to accommodate supposedly long geological age of the earth. In Romans 5:12, death only came about with Adam's sin so it is biblically not possible for death to occur before Adam's sin to account for the fossil records of the billions of years.
In Ezekiel 28:11-19, God spoke about Satan's state before he fell from grace. We know that this king of Tyre wasn't human because Ezekiel has already spoken about the human king of Tyre in verses 1-10 whom God called the leader (or prince) of Tyre. There, all the descriptions was decidedly human in nature. When we moved to verses 11-19, the king of Tyre was described in decidedly angelic form.
Here, God described Satan's dwelling place before his fall as being in the garden of Eden. However, this garden is totally different from the one that Adam and Eve were given by God. In Satan's case, he was in a garden filled with many different types of precious stones. It was also in this garden that Satan's pride got the better of him (see Isaiah 14:12-14) and he declared war against God . Verse 18 in Ezekiel went on to say that the earth became waste and void.
This was probably the context that Genesis began with.
[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)
In this 2 short verses, we can deduce that there there was possibly a gap of time between verse 1 and 2. The evidence can be found in Isaiah 45:18 which says:
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),
If God did not create the earth as a waste place, then it is strange indeed that Genesis described the earth as formless and void (or in an alternative NASB translation, waste and emptiness). The question to ask is whether God created the earth in a state of chaos (which Isaiah 45:18 disproved) or did it became a state of chaos (which Ezekiel 28:18 provided for such a possibility).
Furthermore, the Hebrew word describing formless/waste (tohu) and void/emptiness (bohu) were used together only in two other Old Testament passages and both pointed to the concept of divine judgment (Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23).
But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation [tohu] And the plumb line of emptiness [bohu]. (Isa 34:11)
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless [tohu] and void [bohu]; And to the heavens, and they had no light. (Jer 4:23)
Finally, the Hebrew word that was translated as "was" in Genesis 1:2 (The earth was formless and void) is hayah which can be translated as "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out". Hence the verse can be translated as "The earth became formless and void".
Hence, we can deduce that the fall of Satan occurred between Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2. This is the Bible Gap Theory to account for the fall of Satan and the description of the earth in a state of waste and emptiness. However, this gap is not to be confused with the one which some used to accommodate supposedly long geological age of the earth. In Romans 5:12, death only came about with Adam's sin so it is biblically not possible for death to occur before Adam's sin to account for the fossil records of the billions of years.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Letter to the ST Forum - 'Happy' kids no reason for parental complacency
4 Dec 07 - The Straits Times Forum
I REFER to the report, 'Most S'pore kids are happy: Study' (ST, Nov 30).
The report gave the impression that both dads and mums can and should continue to work without worries (or feel guilty) because (1) 'hours at the office will not affect the emotional well-being of their children' and (2) children who were interviewed in the research indicated that their mums, working or not, often spend time with them.
This report seems to complement recent government efforts to encourage more mothers to re-join the workforce.
The reported findings, based on a highly subjective questionnaire, should not be seen as a blank cheque for couples to abdicate the bulk of their parenting responsibility to childcare services and maids.
Even if we accept that some families may not be able to afford having a parent as the full-time caregiver because of divorce, death or dire financial situations, there are still plenty of couples today who will not think twice about ditching this sacred responsibility for 'lesser' reasons such as professional/career advancement and/or pursuing higher standards of living.
There is nothing wrong in pursuing such things in and of themselves. However, when a couple decide to bring a life into this world, there is a need to critically examine the motives for wanting to do so and evaluate whether they are prepared to make the sacrifices (e.g., giving up on career or luxuries) over the long haul.
My parents separated when I was eight years old and, like Ynez Tan mentioned in the article, I was 'happy' that my working mum was not around so that I could do as I wished. (That the report chose to highlight this girl's views about her mum at work out of the many interviewed spoke volumes about the research's subjectivity).
It was only by the grace of God that I grew up relatively unscathed. Everything else being equal, I would venture to say that children will blossom in an environment where one of the parents is around to provide constant and consistent nurturing love.
Sure, there is no guarantee that children brought up in such an environment will turn out well 100 per cent of the time. However, when they don't and, as parents, you did not make this noble 'sacrifice' when it was in your capacity to do so, it may be too late for regrets over what it could have been.
I REFER to the report, 'Most S'pore kids are happy: Study' (ST, Nov 30).
The report gave the impression that both dads and mums can and should continue to work without worries (or feel guilty) because (1) 'hours at the office will not affect the emotional well-being of their children' and (2) children who were interviewed in the research indicated that their mums, working or not, often spend time with them.
This report seems to complement recent government efforts to encourage more mothers to re-join the workforce.
The reported findings, based on a highly subjective questionnaire, should not be seen as a blank cheque for couples to abdicate the bulk of their parenting responsibility to childcare services and maids.
Even if we accept that some families may not be able to afford having a parent as the full-time caregiver because of divorce, death or dire financial situations, there are still plenty of couples today who will not think twice about ditching this sacred responsibility for 'lesser' reasons such as professional/career advancement and/or pursuing higher standards of living.
There is nothing wrong in pursuing such things in and of themselves. However, when a couple decide to bring a life into this world, there is a need to critically examine the motives for wanting to do so and evaluate whether they are prepared to make the sacrifices (e.g., giving up on career or luxuries) over the long haul.
My parents separated when I was eight years old and, like Ynez Tan mentioned in the article, I was 'happy' that my working mum was not around so that I could do as I wished. (That the report chose to highlight this girl's views about her mum at work out of the many interviewed spoke volumes about the research's subjectivity).
It was only by the grace of God that I grew up relatively unscathed. Everything else being equal, I would venture to say that children will blossom in an environment where one of the parents is around to provide constant and consistent nurturing love.
Sure, there is no guarantee that children brought up in such an environment will turn out well 100 per cent of the time. However, when they don't and, as parents, you did not make this noble 'sacrifice' when it was in your capacity to do so, it may be too late for regrets over what it could have been.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
What Did Joel Actually Said?
One of the most debated quotation of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers must be the quotation that Peter gave to the crowd at Pentecost from Joel 2:28-32. Many people have sought to explained Joel's prophesy as speaking about the pouring of the Holy Spirit onto the 12 disciples. including Matthias and about 120 Jews (Acts 1:15). They reckoned that since Peter quoted from Joel, it must be so. Right?
Wrong. If one bother to read through the entire book of Joel (which isn't very long since it comprises only 3 chapters), one will realise that the only point of agreement was about the pouring of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the fulfillments were all missing at Pentecost.
The Timing Was Wrong
Joel 2:28 mentioned that the pouring of the Holy Spirit will "come about after this". What is this "after this"? Looking at Joel 2:1-10, the events preceding the pouring of the Holy Spirit will be a massive invasion of Jerusalem. This obviously did not happen in Acts.
The Composition Was Wrong
Joel 2:28-29 mentioned that the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh (NKJV) which in the context of Joel was on all Jews. Furthermore, Joel mentioned that "your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.". The Holy Spirit was only poured out onto the 12 disciples and possibly 120 followers in Acts. Also in Acts, no one did any prophesying, and certainly Luke did not record anyone dream dreams and see visions.
The Conditions Were Wrong
Peter's quote from Joel included the signs which said "I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.". Luke also did not record any such signs in Acts itself. Furthermore, Joel did not mentioned about the gift of tongues which were clearly manifested in Acts itself (Acts 2:4).
What we have here is a literal plus application quotation of the Old Testament. The literal meaning of the Joel passage speaks of Israel’s national salvation, when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all Israel, resulting in Israel’s national salvation in preparation for the Messianic Kingdom.
Of course, that did not happen in the Book of Acts, but there was one point of similarity. Because of that one point of similarity, the passage was quoted; not as a point of fulfillment, but as an application. That one point of similarity is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in a unique manifestation. In Joel, the Holy Spirit will some day be poured out upon the whole nation of Israel, resulting in some unique manifestations.
In Acts 2, the Spirit was poured out upon twelve, or one hundred twenty at the most, resulting in a unique manifestation, which in that case was speaking in tongues. The one point of similarity was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Because of that one point of similarity, the New Testament quoted the Old Testament passage as an application.
Acts 2 did not fulfill Joel 2 because, again, nothing that Joel prophesied actually happened in Acts 2. What did happen in Acts 2 was not even spoken of by Joel, because Joel did not mention the gift of tongues. So, because of one point of similarity, the Old Testament has quoted by the New Testament as an application.
(Passages in BLUE extracted from Fruchtenbaum Messianic Bible Studies MBS134M)
Wrong. If one bother to read through the entire book of Joel (which isn't very long since it comprises only 3 chapters), one will realise that the only point of agreement was about the pouring of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the fulfillments were all missing at Pentecost.
The Timing Was Wrong
Joel 2:28 mentioned that the pouring of the Holy Spirit will "come about after this". What is this "after this"? Looking at Joel 2:1-10, the events preceding the pouring of the Holy Spirit will be a massive invasion of Jerusalem. This obviously did not happen in Acts.
The Composition Was Wrong
Joel 2:28-29 mentioned that the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh (NKJV) which in the context of Joel was on all Jews. Furthermore, Joel mentioned that "your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.". The Holy Spirit was only poured out onto the 12 disciples and possibly 120 followers in Acts. Also in Acts, no one did any prophesying, and certainly Luke did not record anyone dream dreams and see visions.
The Conditions Were Wrong
Peter's quote from Joel included the signs which said "I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.". Luke also did not record any such signs in Acts itself. Furthermore, Joel did not mentioned about the gift of tongues which were clearly manifested in Acts itself (Acts 2:4).
What we have here is a literal plus application quotation of the Old Testament. The literal meaning of the Joel passage speaks of Israel’s national salvation, when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all Israel, resulting in Israel’s national salvation in preparation for the Messianic Kingdom.
Of course, that did not happen in the Book of Acts, but there was one point of similarity. Because of that one point of similarity, the passage was quoted; not as a point of fulfillment, but as an application. That one point of similarity is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in a unique manifestation. In Joel, the Holy Spirit will some day be poured out upon the whole nation of Israel, resulting in some unique manifestations.
In Acts 2, the Spirit was poured out upon twelve, or one hundred twenty at the most, resulting in a unique manifestation, which in that case was speaking in tongues. The one point of similarity was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Because of that one point of similarity, the New Testament quoted the Old Testament passage as an application.
Acts 2 did not fulfill Joel 2 because, again, nothing that Joel prophesied actually happened in Acts 2. What did happen in Acts 2 was not even spoken of by Joel, because Joel did not mention the gift of tongues. So, because of one point of similarity, the Old Testament has quoted by the New Testament as an application.
(Passages in BLUE extracted from Fruchtenbaum Messianic Bible Studies MBS134M)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment
6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum
I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.
I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 3)
The next 4 Kingdom parables are only found in Matthew and reading through the entire chapter 13, it is clear that Jesus spoke about all 9 Kingdom parables in a single day after the national rejection by the Jews in Jesus' days. These next 4 parables are also private parables that were spoken to the 12 disciples alone.
(6) The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the hidden treasure. If we take reference from the Parable of the Tares, we can assume that the field represents the world (Matt 13:38).
So what is this Treasure? In Exo 19:5, Deut 7:6 (also Deut 14:2), Deut 26:18, and Psa 135:4, Israel is mentioned as God's סגלּה (segûllâh - peculiar/special treasure).
Hence the treasure is the nation of Israel for which Jesus gave His all to purchase the whole world to possess this treasure. This treasure remained hidden because though Israel was chosen by God as a witness to His glory, they failed and rejected His only Son as well.
According to Fruchtenbaum, the parable makes two main points. (1) Jesus purchased the treasure hidden in the field by the cross. (2) The treasure does not come into His possession, but only the place where the treasure is.
Basically, this parable makes the point that in the Mystery Kingdom, there will be Jews will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
(7) The Parable of the Merchant Seeking Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45-46)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the merchant seeking fine pearls.
Wiersbe wrote that the pearl represented the Church while Fruchtenbaum saw the pearl as the Gentiles of the Church for 2 reasons: (a) the Church comprises Jews and Gentiles, since the treasure represented the Jews, the pearls would corresponding refer to the Gentiles and (b) since pearls originated from the seas, and when the sea is used symbolically, it represents the Gentile world (Dan 7:2-3; Rev 17:15).
Wiersbe further added that pearls grow gradually and are hidden in the oyster shells, much like the Church, and will one day be revealed in its beauty. Fruchtenbaum noted that the pearl grew gradually "till the fullness of the Gentiles have come in" (Rom 11:25) and will be plucked out from the sea signifying the Rapture.
The parable makes the point that the Church, in particular the Gentiles, will come into Jesus' possession through His suffering, death and resurrection.
(8) The Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50)
The Kingdom of God will end with the judgment as represented by the dragnet, where the good fish will be separated from the bad. The environment of the sea also meant that this would be the judgment of the Gentiles which was explicitly detailed in Matt 25:31-46.
(9) The Parable of the Head of the Household (Matt 13:51-53)
This parable is extremely meaningful in that in describing a scribe (understanding the Law) who became a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven (doer of the Law), Jesus is saying that we bring out a treasure (God's Mystery Kingdom program) that is both old (established by the Old Testament) and new (established by the New Testament).
(6) The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the hidden treasure. If we take reference from the Parable of the Tares, we can assume that the field represents the world (Matt 13:38).
So what is this Treasure? In Exo 19:5, Deut 7:6 (also Deut 14:2), Deut 26:18, and Psa 135:4, Israel is mentioned as God's סגלּה (segûllâh - peculiar/special treasure).
Hence the treasure is the nation of Israel for which Jesus gave His all to purchase the whole world to possess this treasure. This treasure remained hidden because though Israel was chosen by God as a witness to His glory, they failed and rejected His only Son as well.
According to Fruchtenbaum, the parable makes two main points. (1) Jesus purchased the treasure hidden in the field by the cross. (2) The treasure does not come into His possession, but only the place where the treasure is.
Basically, this parable makes the point that in the Mystery Kingdom, there will be Jews will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
(7) The Parable of the Merchant Seeking Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45-46)
Here the object describing the Kingdom is the merchant seeking fine pearls.
Wiersbe wrote that the pearl represented the Church while Fruchtenbaum saw the pearl as the Gentiles of the Church for 2 reasons: (a) the Church comprises Jews and Gentiles, since the treasure represented the Jews, the pearls would corresponding refer to the Gentiles and (b) since pearls originated from the seas, and when the sea is used symbolically, it represents the Gentile world (Dan 7:2-3; Rev 17:15).
Wiersbe further added that pearls grow gradually and are hidden in the oyster shells, much like the Church, and will one day be revealed in its beauty. Fruchtenbaum noted that the pearl grew gradually "till the fullness of the Gentiles have come in" (Rom 11:25) and will be plucked out from the sea signifying the Rapture.
The parable makes the point that the Church, in particular the Gentiles, will come into Jesus' possession through His suffering, death and resurrection.
(8) The Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50)
The Kingdom of God will end with the judgment as represented by the dragnet, where the good fish will be separated from the bad. The environment of the sea also meant that this would be the judgment of the Gentiles which was explicitly detailed in Matt 25:31-46.
(9) The Parable of the Head of the Household (Matt 13:51-53)
This parable is extremely meaningful in that in describing a scribe (understanding the Law) who became a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven (doer of the Law), Jesus is saying that we bring out a treasure (God's Mystery Kingdom program) that is both old (established by the Old Testament) and new (established by the New Testament).
Friday, November 09, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 2)
The next two Kingdom parables have generated very differing interpretations from Christians depending on their eschatological viewpoints. I should first confess that I subscribe to the dispensational premillennium viewpoint but I suggest that we let the Bible speak for itself.
(4) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)
The first view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience an extremely fruitful growth and pointed that the birds are the faithful believers that took shelter in this kingdom. The translators of NASB probably had this in mind when they alluded the birds with those mentioned in Ezekiel 17:23.
The second view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience a monstrous and abnormal growth and pointed that the birds are the the evil agents of Satan who will dwell amongst Christendom. This interpretation is in line with the Parable of the Sower where Jesus made reference to the birds that came to pick up the seeds sown beside the road.
I think it will be best to show pictures of mustard seeds and mustard plants before trying to explain why such disparate views exist.
In Matthew and Mark, Jesus stated the obvious fact that the mustard seed is "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" and yet pointed out in Matthew and Luke that it grew up to become a tree. Even in Mark, Jesus pointed out the plant grew large branches. In all 3 passages, the birds came and nested in its branches.
Looking at the picture of the mustard plant, it will be a leap of logic to see how the birds can nest comfortably in the "branches" and describing it as a tree seems to be extremely exaggerating to say the least since mustard seed grows to become a shrub, not a tree. While birds in the Bible did not symbolically only to things of evil origin (e.g., Ezekiel 17:23), I suggest that Jesus would not have sought to confuse us with a negative imagery of birds in the Parable of the Sower and then a positive imagery of birds all within a single chapter of Matthew.
If Jesus had wanted to portray the Kingdom of God experiencing an extremely fruitful growth, He could have used imagery of "an acorn growing up to be an oak" or "a cedar seed growing up to be one of the mighty trees of Lebanon" as it was described in the Ezekiel passage.
Faced with such wealth of evidences, why then would people still want to cling on to the fruitful Kingdom view? Most postmillennialists and many amillennalists take this view since it fits their eschatology to have a parable that tells of the kingdom's triumph in the world before Christ's return*. Of course, some Christians have arbitrarily decided that since nothing can or should thwart the work of God, the Kingdom of God is described in this parable needs to have a good ending. This also applies to the Parable of the Leaven which we will discuss later.
I think this view point is unfortunate and does not reflect what the Bible is saying. While we all like happy endings, it is a fact that the Bible characterised apostasy as something that will happen in the latter days (Matt 24:10-12, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3). Hence the "pessimistic" view of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is in line with the general theme of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed tells us that Christendom will grow into a monstrous proportion with agents of Satan residing within it. This is probably manifested in the various cults and corrupt movements within Christendom.
* Montgomery, "The Parables of Jesus".
(5) The Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)
Here, 2 key imageries are used: leaven and flour. Some have tried to speculate on who or what the woman in the parable represents and made the association that when women are used symbolically in the Bible, it often refers to a false religious system. Whether this was meant to be, it will not change the takeaway of this parable and taking the cue from Jesus' interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, I think the Bible will not provide any conclusive evidence for such speculations.
Turning to the leaven, the Bible has ample references to show that it always referred to as a symbol of sin (Matt 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1, 1 Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:9). Similar to the Parable of the Mustard Seed, amillennialists see leaven as not something that is evil but as something that represents hidden power in order to fit their eschatological viewpoint. It seems strange that amillennialists want to make this one parable an exception on what the leaven symbolised in all other passages.
Why did Jesus specifically detailed the 3 measures* (pecks) of flour? Fruchtenbaum has interpreted it as the 3 major entities of Christendom represented by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. He pointed out that each group has allowed a greater or lesser degree of false doctrine within.
Whatever the interpretation, the Parable of the Leaven makes the point that Christendom will experience intractable doctrinal corruption as represented by the leaven.
* Each measure represents about 7.3 litres.
(4) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)
The first view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience an extremely fruitful growth and pointed that the birds are the faithful believers that took shelter in this kingdom. The translators of NASB probably had this in mind when they alluded the birds with those mentioned in Ezekiel 17:23.
The second view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience a monstrous and abnormal growth and pointed that the birds are the the evil agents of Satan who will dwell amongst Christendom. This interpretation is in line with the Parable of the Sower where Jesus made reference to the birds that came to pick up the seeds sown beside the road.
I think it will be best to show pictures of mustard seeds and mustard plants before trying to explain why such disparate views exist.
In Matthew and Mark, Jesus stated the obvious fact that the mustard seed is "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" and yet pointed out in Matthew and Luke that it grew up to become a tree. Even in Mark, Jesus pointed out the plant grew large branches. In all 3 passages, the birds came and nested in its branches.
Looking at the picture of the mustard plant, it will be a leap of logic to see how the birds can nest comfortably in the "branches" and describing it as a tree seems to be extremely exaggerating to say the least since mustard seed grows to become a shrub, not a tree. While birds in the Bible did not symbolically only to things of evil origin (e.g., Ezekiel 17:23), I suggest that Jesus would not have sought to confuse us with a negative imagery of birds in the Parable of the Sower and then a positive imagery of birds all within a single chapter of Matthew.
If Jesus had wanted to portray the Kingdom of God experiencing an extremely fruitful growth, He could have used imagery of "an acorn growing up to be an oak" or "a cedar seed growing up to be one of the mighty trees of Lebanon" as it was described in the Ezekiel passage.
Faced with such wealth of evidences, why then would people still want to cling on to the fruitful Kingdom view? Most postmillennialists and many amillennalists take this view since it fits their eschatology to have a parable that tells of the kingdom's triumph in the world before Christ's return*. Of course, some Christians have arbitrarily decided that since nothing can or should thwart the work of God, the Kingdom of God is described in this parable needs to have a good ending. This also applies to the Parable of the Leaven which we will discuss later.
I think this view point is unfortunate and does not reflect what the Bible is saying. While we all like happy endings, it is a fact that the Bible characterised apostasy as something that will happen in the latter days (Matt 24:10-12, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3). Hence the "pessimistic" view of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is in line with the general theme of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed tells us that Christendom will grow into a monstrous proportion with agents of Satan residing within it. This is probably manifested in the various cults and corrupt movements within Christendom.
* Montgomery, "The Parables of Jesus".
(5) The Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)
Here, 2 key imageries are used: leaven and flour. Some have tried to speculate on who or what the woman in the parable represents and made the association that when women are used symbolically in the Bible, it often refers to a false religious system. Whether this was meant to be, it will not change the takeaway of this parable and taking the cue from Jesus' interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, I think the Bible will not provide any conclusive evidence for such speculations.
Turning to the leaven, the Bible has ample references to show that it always referred to as a symbol of sin (Matt 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1, 1 Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:9). Similar to the Parable of the Mustard Seed, amillennialists see leaven as not something that is evil but as something that represents hidden power in order to fit their eschatological viewpoint. It seems strange that amillennialists want to make this one parable an exception on what the leaven symbolised in all other passages.
Why did Jesus specifically detailed the 3 measures* (pecks) of flour? Fruchtenbaum has interpreted it as the 3 major entities of Christendom represented by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. He pointed out that each group has allowed a greater or lesser degree of false doctrine within.
Whatever the interpretation, the Parable of the Leaven makes the point that Christendom will experience intractable doctrinal corruption as represented by the leaven.
* Each measure represents about 7.3 litres.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 1)
If you make an attempt to harmonise the gospels, you will realise that the parables of the Kingdom were the very first series of parables taught by Jesus. I adapted most of of the following insights from the bible study series from Arnonld Fruchtenbaum.
When the Jews, collectively represented by the Pharisees and Scribes, rejected Jesus' messianic claims and attributed his messianic miracles to the work of Satan, Jesus pronounced judgment on the Israelite generation then for committing the "unpardonable" sin - rejecting God's manifestation of Jesus on earth. Straight away thereafter, He commenced his parabolic teaching, proclaiming the Mystery Kingdom in place of the Davidic Kingdom that the Israelites were waiting for which would have to await a later, future fulfillment (See my other post).
The 9 parables of the Kingdom can be found in Matthew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18.
(1) The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8)
Jesus explained the meaning of this parable in Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20 and Luke 8:11-15). This parable makes the point that there will be sowing of the gospel seed in this age with different responses - those who do not believe (birds who ate up the seeds), those who are saved but are not stablised because they were not rooted in the Word of God (seeds on rocky ground), those who are saved but are not stablised because they are distracted by the cares of the world (seeds amongst thorns) and those who are saved and are productive because they are rooted in the Word of God and are not distracted by the cares of the world (seeds on good ground).
It is critical to note Jesus' statement in Mark 4:13 that understanding this particular parable sets the context to understand the rest of the Kingdom parables. This will be clearer as we discuss the subsequent parables.
(2) The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)
This parable makes the point that the gospel seed which has been sown will have an inner energy that it will spring into life on its own accord. This is the mystery of the gospel message - How a simple message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death through his resurrection have change a person's course of life.
(3) The Parable of The Tares (Matt 13:24-30)
This parable was explained by Jesus in Matt 13:36-43. Tares (or darnel) are false wheats. Tares are indistinguishable from the real wheat until the ear is developed, when the thin fruitless ear of the darnel is detected. Its root would so intertwines with that of the wheat that the farmer cannot separate them, without plucking up both.
The one who sows the good seed - is the Son of Man
The field - is the world
The good seeds - are the sons of the kingdom
The tares - are the sons of the evil one
The enemy who sowed them - is the devil
The harvest - is the end of the age
The reapers - are angels
Jesus' interpretation of this parable should be the model on how we should understand all other parables. There were no exposition to why were the landowner's men sleeping, who were the slaves, why the landowner could not prevent his enemy from sowing the tares and why the landowner could not remove the tares from the onset.
This parable makes 4 essential points: (1) The sowing of the gospel seed will be imitated by false counter-sowing, (2) there is going to be side-by-side development of truth and falsehood which would be indistinguishable, (3) there is going to be judgment and (4) the final distinction will be the "fruit" that comes out of wheat and tare.
This parable also makes 3 sub-points:
(a) The good seeds are planted before the tares are sowed. This suggest that the tares are not generic sinful people in general but more accurately, false christians planted by Satan to hinder God's work and who are indistinguishable from true christians in the beginning.
(b) The landowner told the slaves not to gather the tares at the initial stage "for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them". While the passage did not shed further light into the reasons, one possible interpretation is that because we cannot tell true from false christians at this time, to exercise church discipline in an attempt to weed out the "tares" may damage or discourage true christians who have yet to mature.
(c) Who were the tares? - "all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness" [Matt 13:41]. While the latter are self-explanatory, it is interesting to note that those who prevent others from coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus were also lumped together those who commit lawlessness.
When the Jews, collectively represented by the Pharisees and Scribes, rejected Jesus' messianic claims and attributed his messianic miracles to the work of Satan, Jesus pronounced judgment on the Israelite generation then for committing the "unpardonable" sin - rejecting God's manifestation of Jesus on earth. Straight away thereafter, He commenced his parabolic teaching, proclaiming the Mystery Kingdom in place of the Davidic Kingdom that the Israelites were waiting for which would have to await a later, future fulfillment (See my other post).
The 9 parables of the Kingdom can be found in Matthew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18.
(1) The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8)
Jesus explained the meaning of this parable in Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20 and Luke 8:11-15). This parable makes the point that there will be sowing of the gospel seed in this age with different responses - those who do not believe (birds who ate up the seeds), those who are saved but are not stablised because they were not rooted in the Word of God (seeds on rocky ground), those who are saved but are not stablised because they are distracted by the cares of the world (seeds amongst thorns) and those who are saved and are productive because they are rooted in the Word of God and are not distracted by the cares of the world (seeds on good ground).
It is critical to note Jesus' statement in Mark 4:13 that understanding this particular parable sets the context to understand the rest of the Kingdom parables. This will be clearer as we discuss the subsequent parables.
(2) The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)
This parable makes the point that the gospel seed which has been sown will have an inner energy that it will spring into life on its own accord. This is the mystery of the gospel message - How a simple message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death through his resurrection have change a person's course of life.
(3) The Parable of The Tares (Matt 13:24-30)
This parable was explained by Jesus in Matt 13:36-43. Tares (or darnel) are false wheats. Tares are indistinguishable from the real wheat until the ear is developed, when the thin fruitless ear of the darnel is detected. Its root would so intertwines with that of the wheat that the farmer cannot separate them, without plucking up both.
The one who sows the good seed - is the Son of Man
The field - is the world
The good seeds - are the sons of the kingdom
The tares - are the sons of the evil one
The enemy who sowed them - is the devil
The harvest - is the end of the age
The reapers - are angels
Jesus' interpretation of this parable should be the model on how we should understand all other parables. There were no exposition to why were the landowner's men sleeping, who were the slaves, why the landowner could not prevent his enemy from sowing the tares and why the landowner could not remove the tares from the onset.
This parable makes 4 essential points: (1) The sowing of the gospel seed will be imitated by false counter-sowing, (2) there is going to be side-by-side development of truth and falsehood which would be indistinguishable, (3) there is going to be judgment and (4) the final distinction will be the "fruit" that comes out of wheat and tare.
This parable also makes 3 sub-points:
(a) The good seeds are planted before the tares are sowed. This suggest that the tares are not generic sinful people in general but more accurately, false christians planted by Satan to hinder God's work and who are indistinguishable from true christians in the beginning.
(b) The landowner told the slaves not to gather the tares at the initial stage "for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them". While the passage did not shed further light into the reasons, one possible interpretation is that because we cannot tell true from false christians at this time, to exercise church discipline in an attempt to weed out the "tares" may damage or discourage true christians who have yet to mature.
(c) Who were the tares? - "all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness" [Matt 13:41]. While the latter are self-explanatory, it is interesting to note that those who prevent others from coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus were also lumped together those who commit lawlessness.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Letter to the ST Forum - Polarisation beginning to show
1 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum
BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.
BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Gloves Are Off
In Alex Au's latest post on the Yawning Bread, he has decided to up the ante by doing an expose on the identity of the sender of the hate email to Thio Li-Ann as the playwright and erstwhile relief teacher Alfian Sa'at.
I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:
SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.
Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.
In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.
Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.
However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.
He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.
"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch
***************
1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?
2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.
I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.
Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:
I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.
Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:
When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.
*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.
I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:
SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.
Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.
In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.
Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.
However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.
He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.
"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch
***************
1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?
2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.
I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.
Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:
I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.
Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:
When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.
*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Irony of It All
Recently, the Repeal377A.com community came face-to-face with their silent majority counterpart in the form of Keep377A.com and Support377A.com. While the silent majority respected the rights of the LGBT community to their online petition efforts, this was not apparent reciprocated by the LGBT netizens as evident in the various smear postings seen on the two sites. Even the well-known, middle-of-the-ground, gay activist, Alex Au could not resist taking a swipe at the Straits Times for publishing "poor quality work" from people who opposed the repeal of section 377A.
The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.
I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.
Good evening Alex.
I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.
However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.
Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.
There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.
Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.
Alex Tan
The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.
I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.
Good evening Alex.
I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.
However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.
Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.
There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.
Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.
Alex Tan
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A
I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.
I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.
It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.
While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.
I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.
It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.
While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" - An Illogical Truism?
On 1 Oct 07, an article appeared in the Straits Times YouthInk section speaking about the hypocrisy of the principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to a homosexual. I wrote a letter in response to the article which I re-produced here. The ST forum decided not to publish this in the Forum page and choose to re-direct the letter to YouthInk for their possible use. I am not sure whether there is a general LGBT fatigue on the part of the Forum editor but I guessed the fatigue is not wide-spread given that YouthInk had decided to discuss the NTU survey as a preamble to the article as well.
I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.
Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.
The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?
If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.
I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.
Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.
The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?
If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Keep on Listening But Do not Perceive
Whether one is a Christian or otherwise, the parables of the Bibles, especially the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, are well-known and good moral lessons are gleaned from believers and non-believers alike.
However, Jesus' parabolic teaching began on a less than warm-fuzzy origin. The original genesis for the parables was a response to the rejection of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Confronted with evidence of miracles performed by Jesus that the Pharisees claimed could only be performed by the Messiah, they chose to attributed it to Satan's influence. As a result, Jesus pronounced His judgment over that generation of Jews and the sacking of the 2nd Temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans ensued. (Read it here)
Immediately after that, Jesus began teaching the multitudes in parables but explained these parables to the 12 disciples in private. The disciples' question of the purpose of these parables served to indicate that this was the beginning of a new methodology since prior to this, Jesus spoke in plain language that people could understand (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). One of the reasons was to hide the truths from the masses of the day, including the Jewish leadership would continued to follow him over the course of Jesus' ministry. Since they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, no more light will be given. Hence, in a counter-intuitive sort of way, these parables that Christians have grown to love and treasure grew out of a dark origin.
I am embarking on a parable journey over the next couple of weeks and will be posting some of the insights here. Some of the ideas that I will be sharing are inspired by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic Jew based in the United States. You can find his Ariel ministry website link here.
However, Jesus' parabolic teaching began on a less than warm-fuzzy origin. The original genesis for the parables was a response to the rejection of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Confronted with evidence of miracles performed by Jesus that the Pharisees claimed could only be performed by the Messiah, they chose to attributed it to Satan's influence. As a result, Jesus pronounced His judgment over that generation of Jews and the sacking of the 2nd Temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans ensued. (Read it here)
Immediately after that, Jesus began teaching the multitudes in parables but explained these parables to the 12 disciples in private. The disciples' question of the purpose of these parables served to indicate that this was the beginning of a new methodology since prior to this, Jesus spoke in plain language that people could understand (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). One of the reasons was to hide the truths from the masses of the day, including the Jewish leadership would continued to follow him over the course of Jesus' ministry. Since they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, no more light will be given. Hence, in a counter-intuitive sort of way, these parables that Christians have grown to love and treasure grew out of a dark origin.
I am embarking on a parable journey over the next couple of weeks and will be posting some of the insights here. Some of the ideas that I will be sharing are inspired by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic Jew based in the United States. You can find his Ariel ministry website link here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Mega Church Debate - Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?
In the past week, there was an interesting debate in the Straits Times forum on a letter sent by a parent (Dr Lee) who wrote to warn about the teaching of mega churches and how it has led (at least in her experience) to fallen grades and disassociation of family customs and traditions.
Immediately following that letter, many on both sides of the fences responded with clarifications, examples, counter-examples or warnings. Many well-meaning supporters were quick to point out that the Bible is clear on the need to honour your father and mother. Some pointed out, rightfully, that it is too simplistic to blame church activities for fallen grades and family neglect. Others wrote of horror stories of how their children were led astray by cultic church group leaders to reject their parents and their traditions.
As a parent, I can empathise with the perennial concerns over what we view as negative influences of the world. There are also no excuse to be made for people who exploit the church and the teachings of the Bible for their own personal gains. Black sheeps do exist within the church and its leaders need to do more to weed such behaviours from the church.
Having said that, I think the conclusion that the mega churches are responsible for the children behaviour is too simplistic. As any parent will tell you, we play a very important and critical role in the way we bring up our children. Like it or not, we lay the foundation from which our children build up their world-view and it takes extraordinary amount of time, effort, discipline and patience to get it roughly right. The final ingredient is open communications and respect for our children's viewpoints, which is very important when the child reaches his teens and experiments with the concept of independence. Questionable church practices aside, parents like Dr Lee needs to first look inwards to examine the root cause before indiscriminately taking the churches in Singapore to task for leading her children astray. Perhaps she should spend the effort in writing the letter towards a heart-to-heart talk with her children and re-establish the bond of open communication and understanding. I think this would have been more fruitful.
Finally, just to kill the issue once and for all, the Bible is clear about children's responsibility to their fathers and mothers. In fact, in the Ten Commandments, the commandment to honour your father and mother is the only commandment that brings with it blessing for the one who obey.
Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)
Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart. (Colossians 3:21)
Immediately following that letter, many on both sides of the fences responded with clarifications, examples, counter-examples or warnings. Many well-meaning supporters were quick to point out that the Bible is clear on the need to honour your father and mother. Some pointed out, rightfully, that it is too simplistic to blame church activities for fallen grades and family neglect. Others wrote of horror stories of how their children were led astray by cultic church group leaders to reject their parents and their traditions.
As a parent, I can empathise with the perennial concerns over what we view as negative influences of the world. There are also no excuse to be made for people who exploit the church and the teachings of the Bible for their own personal gains. Black sheeps do exist within the church and its leaders need to do more to weed such behaviours from the church.
Having said that, I think the conclusion that the mega churches are responsible for the children behaviour is too simplistic. As any parent will tell you, we play a very important and critical role in the way we bring up our children. Like it or not, we lay the foundation from which our children build up their world-view and it takes extraordinary amount of time, effort, discipline and patience to get it roughly right. The final ingredient is open communications and respect for our children's viewpoints, which is very important when the child reaches his teens and experiments with the concept of independence. Questionable church practices aside, parents like Dr Lee needs to first look inwards to examine the root cause before indiscriminately taking the churches in Singapore to task for leading her children astray. Perhaps she should spend the effort in writing the letter towards a heart-to-heart talk with her children and re-establish the bond of open communication and understanding. I think this would have been more fruitful.
Finally, just to kill the issue once and for all, the Bible is clear about children's responsibility to their fathers and mothers. In fact, in the Ten Commandments, the commandment to honour your father and mother is the only commandment that brings with it blessing for the one who obey.
Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)
Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart. (Colossians 3:21)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)