Recently picked up a book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs from the local library about a person's one-year journey to take the Bible literally and do exactly as it is presented, at face value. Rather than feeling peeved and upset over the author's at times cheap shots at Christianity, I found it an eye-opening experience and realised how much I know (or not know) about my Bible. It was also interesting to see how opponents of Christianity can find any platform available to them to denounce the faith. Hence we have John Shelby Spong being quoted by the book publisher:
"[The author] has perceived the distinction between the wisdom of the Bible and is absurdities. It is a shame that so many of both our clergy and our politicians seem incapable of making that distinction."
To begin, Jacobs humble quest to follow the Bible as literal as possible is a misnomer. While claiming literalness, Jacobs obviously caveat it by stating that his plan was to "try to find the original intention of the biblical rule or teaching and follow that to the letter. If the passage is unquestionably figurative, then I won't obey it literally." Then he went on to impose his own mental model on the various laws. Not surprisingly, the first one that he waffled through is the 10% tithes.
Where better to start than to pick on the two extremities.
Do not Mix Wool and Linen
The first was his hilarious journey in tackling his Top Five Most Perplexing Rules in the Bible - The ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres", specifically the rule not to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). In the midst of engaging an expert to rummage through his wardrobe to ensure that he abides by the rule, he put forth the point that obeying rules with no rational explanation is a jarring one.
Obviously, without starting from the right footing, plunging into the Mosaic Laws would not make much of a sense. What Jacobs failed to realise (at least he did not reflect it in the book) is that the Laws were given to the nation of Israel to set them apart from the wide-spread paganistic culture during their time. While we can postulate the rationale for the bulk of the rules, some are just rules to differentiate them from the pagans. If you dress differently from the crowd, you are obviously more likely not to succumb to the culture of the masses. It is a simple and straightforward principle.
Sabbath - Made for Men, Not The Other Way Round
Of course being a Jew, his treatment of the Sabbath ordnance was heavily leaned toward the Orthodox Judaism interpretation. Given my familiarity with Jewish interpretation of work, the part about tearing up toilet paper in advance so as not to be "working" while toileting during Sabbath was absolutely hilarious. It is sad to see how a compassionate rule to encourage humans and the land to rest has become one that enslaves us. Being literally in the Sabbath observance means just to rest when it is mandated. Going beyond what it is written is embellishment, not literalism. Jesus, during His time on earth, addressed this issue and said that Sabbath was made for men and not men for Sabbath. When the rabbis went to the extreme to label healing and helping others as work during Sabbath, we have obviously crossed the line.
(To be continued...)
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
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)
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.
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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Homosexuality - A Gift from God?
Recently, the LGBT community organised a panel discussion that roped in Member of Parliament (MP) Baey Yam Keng, nominated MP Siew Kum Hong and a retired pastor Yap Kim Hao to add credibility to their cause in their effort to seek support to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex. The Straits Times reporter wrote that Yap Kim Hao is a "Methodist Church leader".
When I first read the news report, my curiosity was naturally raised on how a Singaporean pastor would make a statement saying that "this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community". It was revealed several days later that Yap had retired and he was speaking in his personal capacity. Whatever his status, it must have been a coup for the LGBT community to find a retired bishop to support their cause.
Researching the internet to find out more, I found a transcript of an address he made in May 07 on this issue. The address is re-produced here and my responses in [BLUE]:
Let me at the outset indicate the rationale for my perspective on homosexuality.
Transcript of Dr. Yap Kim Hao's address at the Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church, Singapore on 10 May 07. Dr Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.
Read his earlier longer but similar essay here.
When I first read the news report, my curiosity was naturally raised on how a Singaporean pastor would make a statement saying that "this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community". It was revealed several days later that Yap had retired and he was speaking in his personal capacity. Whatever his status, it must have been a coup for the LGBT community to find a retired bishop to support their cause.
Researching the internet to find out more, I found a transcript of an address he made in May 07 on this issue. The address is re-produced here and my responses in [BLUE]:
Let me at the outset indicate the rationale for my perspective on homosexuality.
I can do no better than to quote from an official statement of The United Methodist Church in the United States that considers homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings and I am a Methodist. Yet it is this same Church that recognizes its "limited understanding of this complex gift and encourages the medical, theological, and social science disciplines to combine in a determined effort to understand human sexuality more completely. We call the Church to take the leadership role in bringing together these disciplines to address this most complex issue."
[Yap seemed to suggest that the "incompatible" statement came before the "limited understanding statement and the paragraph suggested that even though the Methodist leaders took this stand, there were uncertainty in the position adopted. In the United Methodist Church (UMC) Book of Discipline which he quoted from, it actually spoke about human sexuality. This complex gift is not about homosexual orientation but human sexuality. Rather than uncertainty, having bringing together these disciplines to address homosexuality as one of this complex issue, the affirmation was that the church "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching". However the same article also stressed that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth... affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community... implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.".]
My approach is therefore a multi-disciplinary one.
Firstly, I will raise some general observations about the teaching of the Bible itself.
I quote a former colleague of mine when I was teaching at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Victor Paul Furnish, a distinguished Professor of New Testament who wrote: "Homosexuality is not a prominent Biblical concern. The earliest ethical codes of the Hebrews makes no mention of homosexual behavior. There is nothing about it in the Ten Commandments. The four Gospels record no saying of Jesus on the subject. The texts that are discussed are few and far between and not even all of these are pertinent."
Firstly, I will raise some general observations about the teaching of the Bible itself.
I quote a former colleague of mine when I was teaching at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Victor Paul Furnish, a distinguished Professor of New Testament who wrote: "Homosexuality is not a prominent Biblical concern. The earliest ethical codes of the Hebrews makes no mention of homosexual behavior. There is nothing about it in the Ten Commandments. The four Gospels record no saying of Jesus on the subject. The texts that are discussed are few and far between and not even all of these are pertinent."
[This is a weak argument. Bestality, peodopilia and necrophilia are similarly not mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor did Jesus talk about these subject in the Four Gospels records. Are we to make a similar conclusion that sex with animals, children or corpses are not condemned? The reason why these and many other issues were not mentioned was simply that they weren't of practical concerns to the people in Jesus' time. Remember that the Gospels were written to tell the good news and not to be a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts. John, Jesus' disciple, ended his book by saying that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."]
But what do we see in many Churches in different parts of the world today?
Homosexuality has become a major issue, much more serious than doctrine or church order. It is projected to split the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury who is personally gay-affirming, has to recognize the current teaching of the Anglican Communion which is against homosexuality.
[It is sad that homosexual advocates who want the best of both worlds have invaded the churches to create chaos in the Christian world. Are these splits necessarily bad? The Protestant movement led by Martin Luther against the excesses and false doctrines of the Catholic church in 1517 and sparked the most momentous split in Christendom. On hindsight, this split helped the Catholics to re-examine their own actions and led to their own revival.]
As Christians refer to this common source of the Bible, those who are anti-gay are quick to say that the Bible says so and then close the Book. And the controversial issue of homosexuality is no longer discussed. The teaching of the Bible leads to the teaching of the Church which then becomes official, and obedience is demanded. The different perspectives arise from the differing interpretation of the words of the Bible and the teachings of the Church and its pronouncements change as we gain more knowledge and insights.
[Why must Christians who says that the Bible is against homosexual practices be labelled as "anti-gay"? Christians may be against abortion but no one label one who is against the act of abortion as one who is against the women who committed such acts. It just shows the propaganda that advocates for homosexuals go through that they cannot or will not accept Christians' opposition against the homosexual practices but not the personalities. Also, from a pastor who probably has a greater depth of theological knowledge than myself, the word "controversial" is a little strong. The issue of homosexual practices is no longer discussed in the church because the Bible is clear. Again it is not the Church that is demanding obedience but the Bible. The Bible says to love the Lord your God with all your mind (Matthew 22:37). It means that Christians need to be convinced in their mind when they choose to be obedient to God's word. Yap should give more credit to bona-fide Christians and not to assume that we are all blindly led by the Church.]
My view is that the different books of the Bible are time bound, historically related, culturally conditioned and contextually based. They are related to the time and place of the recorded events. They reflect the society and the culture at the time the books of the Bible were written. The revelation of God is mediated and translated by inspired human beings who are not infallible. We have to account for the relevancy of the teaching to our contemporary context.
[I will agree that the Bible needs to be understood and interpreted with the context it was written in mind. However, there are eternal values and temporal issues. Where it is temporal, the Bible explains it. As an example, the ritual cleanliness Mosaic laws and its sacrificial systems are no longer applicable to Christian because Jesus paid the ultimate and complete price as a substitution for our sins. Hence we need not sacrifice any more animals and sprinkle any more blood because Jesus death on the cross has made the final and complete sacrifice. Because of this, we can boldly approach God without needing to go through the ritual cleanliness routine. On the issue of infallibility of the scripture writers, it is instructive to note that Jesus equated whatever that was written in the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Not once did he cast doubts on the Old Testament the way Yap has decided to allude to here.]
The various books of the Bible are the products of writers who claim to have received the revelation from God, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, put it in writing. Their different interpretations resulted in the changing official teaching of the Church and the varying perspectives of Biblical scholars and theologians. This process continues and we have today come together to share our different perspectives and though we differ, we are expected to respect our differences.
[Yap did not give an example of different interpretation of the biblical writers and I suspect there isn't a single example that he could have quoted.]
The teaching of the Church must necessarily be continuously changing. Take for instance human relationships, we have moved from the predominantly patriarchal to more equality between men and women. In reference to health we are attributing disease not to spirit possession but to bacteria and viruses. In terms of geography even the flat earth has been rounded into a spherical one. Our world-view is ever changing.
[The patriarchal argument has always been thrown at the Christians but let me just quote 2 examples that contradict this idea:
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. (Ephesians 5:28-29)
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)
These 2 biblical quotations don't sound very patriarchal to me about men and women. What sinful humans decide to do should not be attributed as the fault of the Bible (ditto for the crusades, witch-hunts, inquisitions, apartheid, slavery etc).
The Bible is also not a medical or science text books but where it speaks of issues alluded to medical or science issues, there are no contradictions to the established facts and observations of the real world.]
With this as background, the Biblical view of sexual relationships is that heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts are sinful. The Biblical writers regard all men as heterosexual and in condemning same-sex acts, they see it as men exchanging their male role to that of an inferior role of women. At that time, they were not able to distinguish between those whom we now identify as homosexual, from the heterosexual. Their view was that of heterosexuals engaging in same-sex sexual acts.
[Again, Yap decided to make a statement (italic) without substantiating it. As my previous comment, the Bible's and Jesus' treatment of women were far more enlightened during their time and even perhaps today. I know detractors will start quoting bible verses to the contrary but I will leave that to another post. Yap should also give more credit to the ancient world. Within the Jewish community, homosexuality was not an issue because God specifically spoke against it but in the Greco-Roman era, the people were far more aware and accepting of such practices. The apostle Paul himself was a Roman citizen and yet with the ability to "distinguish between those who we now identify as homosexual", he was the foremost speaker against the practice of homosexuality.]
The Biblical texts that explicitly talk about same-sex acts are few in number. The brief references are related to laws of purity, holiness, temple rituals and to the Greco-Roman culture and pagan worship. There were temple prostitutes, male prostitution and pederasty (mentoring and sex with young callboys). Jesus did not deal with same-sex relations in His teaching although he had much to say about sex, love, marriage and divorce. Homosexuality in terms of sexual orientation and long-term committed relationships as we understand them today was not discussed and not even a term used at that time.
[See my previous comments about Jesus' non-treatment of homosexuality and awareness during Jesus' time about homosexuality.]
It was much later that the term "homosexual" was used. Homosexuality as a term was introduced in 1869. It first appeared in newer translations of the Bible – Revised Standard Version in 1946 and in New International Version in 1978. Homosexuality is not originally a Biblical word.
[The Greek word used by the New Testament writers, translated by the English Bible as homosexuals, is arsenokoites (literally male-bed). A related Greek word malakos (literally soft of persons) is translated by the Bible as effeminate. LGBT argued that if the apostle Paul had wanted to refer to homosexuals, he would have used a more "common" Greek term paiderasste (lovers of boys, literally paid-lovers). The English language updates itself over time. Prior to 1869, the King James Version translated arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Given that arsenokoites is a masculine voice, the subsequent rendering to homosexuality is natural.
But I don't think the nuances of the Greek language is the issue and besides, I am not expert or a user of Greek. LGBT who wants to be Christians want to split hair over the specific type of homosexual practices that the Bible actually condemned and insist that it did not include loving monogamous ones by scrutinising the Greek used. If we go back to one of the verses in question, it reads "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.". Why insists on performing word gymnastics on the Greek word used for homosexuals and not for the rest? I am sure we can find specific circumstances of the other 8 traits that the Bible condemns.]
Other terms like 'heterosexual,' 'bisexual,' and ‘transgendered’ presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the faintest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'.
[See above on malakos for effeminate or transgendered.]
Let us look more closely at some of the Biblical records related to sexuality and how they show varying perspectives.
The law of Moses allowed for man to divorce his wife on account of some "indecency" in her. (Deuteronomy 24:1); Jesus categorically forbids it and will not man "put asunder" those united in marriage. (Mark 10:1-12); Jesus was also said to have sanctioned divorce on the condition of "unchastity." (Matthew 9:9). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus are divorced and for other reasons.
Divorced people are allowed baptism, church membership, communion, ordination and re-marriage but this has not always been the case for homosexuals. What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
[I don't really follow Yap's line of argument vis-a-vis divorce. The sins of divorce and homosexuality are the same in the eyes of God. I hope Yap is not suggesting that divorced people who have been allowed baptism, communion etc are holding up their heads high and proclaiming that they are proud of being a divorcee and will choose to divorce again should they get married. Homosexuals want to be allowed baptism, communion etc still hang on to their homosexual lifestyles. Isn't there a big difference here?]
Take the issue of sex itself. It began with sex only for procreation which the early Christian theologians agree. When it serves to satisfy lust it is regarded as venial sin. Augustine in the fifth century said that we should mature as early as possible to the point when we can dispense with sexual intercourse.
However, the Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and we are to be fruitful and multiply. And 1 Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made celibacy mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian anti-gay demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. Some anti-gay people condone sexual orientation but condemn homosexual acts. Some gay and lesbians like heterosexuals have chosen to live a life of single blessedness.
[Actually the Bible is neutral on celibacy. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:7 wished that all men were single like him in the time of distress during his time but in the same breath, he recognised the both marriage and celibacy are God's gifts. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 just states that in the last days, amongst many things, some people will forbid marriages (Was Paul referring to the Catholics?). Interestingly, the Bible only explicitly condemned homosexual acts and not feelings unlike lust where Jesus specifically made the point that one has committed adultery if he looked at a woman in lust. This has led to one view that a person may have homosexual orientation but can still avoid sinning by not acting on them as Yap has alluded to.]
Leviticus 21 discussed how priests need to be morally, and even physically unblemished and must meet the requirements of the purity laws at that time. Today most of these purity laws are being ignored.
[See earlier comments on Mosaic ritual cleanliness laws.]
Far from being a Book full of bad news for gays and lesbians, I believe the Bible is indeed full of good news of God's love for all of creation - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight alike. The Bible has no clear and consistent sex ethic and only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores, moral codes or church teachings are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. There is also the emphasis on grace rather than on law.
[For that matter, the Bible is full of good news for divorcees, women who underwent abortions, sinners all if they repent and accept the saving grace that Jesus freely gives. At the same time, the Bible also clearly state in no uncertain terms that "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God".]
The medical sciences today acknowledge homosexuality as a sexual orientation, not a medical, psychological or psychiatric condition that can be changed therapeutically.
It is on record that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA categorically said, "... homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".
The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major groups of medical, educational, and counseling professionals have concluded that there exists, as yet, no scientific basis for the contention that so-called reparative, reorientation, or conversion therapies can successfully change a person’s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The prevailing view among therapists is that gay and lesbian patients should be helped to improve their self-esteem and to overcome the continuing stigmatization of homosexuality in many societies. However reparative therapies are being endorsed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which represents a minority of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other practitioners, and by some religions.
It is on record that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA categorically said, "... homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".
The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major groups of medical, educational, and counseling professionals have concluded that there exists, as yet, no scientific basis for the contention that so-called reparative, reorientation, or conversion therapies can successfully change a person’s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The prevailing view among therapists is that gay and lesbian patients should be helped to improve their self-esteem and to overcome the continuing stigmatization of homosexuality in many societies. However reparative therapies are being endorsed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which represents a minority of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other practitioners, and by some religions.
[In a lawsuit trigger-happy society where individual rights triumphs over all and where churches are brow-beaten to accept homosexuals, it is not surprising that APA has acquiesced to the militant pressures of the LGBT community.]
Recently MM Lee Kuan Yew was widely quoted on this issue: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it," he said in remarks published by The Straits Times.
"So why should we criminalize it?" Lee asked.
"But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu (and) Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."
"So why should we criminalize it?" Lee asked.
"But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu (and) Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."
Homosexuality is not an aberration, tendency, or inclination. It is a genetic or biological variation. It is an orientation.
We must admit that we do not know for certain the causes of homosexuality. This concluding statement in an article of causes best summarizes the situation:
"Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."
We must admit that we do not know for certain the causes of homosexuality. This concluding statement in an article of causes best summarizes the situation:
"Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."
[MM Lee has made several statements in support for the de-criminalisation of homosexual acts, the latest in a recent interview with IHT without even being prompted. How do I read this? Being the 110% pragmatic man that he is, the man always have a hard-nosed reason for his words and actions. The latest interview where he commented that Singapore will need to go the same way as China and Hong Kong did to recognise gays and lesbians showed that, in all probability, hard-nosed economics played a part. Siew Kum Hong also suggested that the LGBT community in Singapore may need to pitch the economic arguments which drew mixed reactions from the community.
Pure genetics arguments are flawed because you will always almost able to find twins who will end up with different sexual orientations. If it is nurture and not nature, then people have a choice and make his/her own decision.]
Pure genetics arguments are flawed because you will always almost able to find twins who will end up with different sexual orientations. If it is nurture and not nature, then people have a choice and make his/her own decision.]
Given this medical perspective on homosexuality how do I minister to GLBT people? Within the larger framework of my understanding of the love of God for all of God’s people and my reading of Christian ethics relating to justice and concern for the marginalized and minorities, I can only affirm and accept the GLBT community and render my service to them in whatever way that is helpful.
From my perspective, homosexuality is within the purpose of God in creation. There is a continuum of sexual relationships from heterosexualilty to homosexuality. God has made it possible for each individual to be unique and different and I affirm the diversity in God’s creation. Homosexuality is a given and not a choice.
From my perspective, homosexuality is within the purpose of God in creation. There is a continuum of sexual relationships from heterosexualilty to homosexuality. God has made it possible for each individual to be unique and different and I affirm the diversity in God’s creation. Homosexuality is a given and not a choice.
[Yap makes this baffling logical leap from the previous discussion on the genetic basis of homosexuality and admitting that he did not know the causes of homosexuality to starting the next segment that assumed that there was a medical basis to the behaviour and ended with the statement that homosexuality is a given and not a choice.]
In my experience of pastoral care to the gay community, I feel their pain and agony when they first became aware of their attraction to people of the same sex. Their experience is that it is not a phase that will go away. In the solitariness of their closets they struggle and pray. Most gay people know from painful personal experience that their homosexual inclination is definitely not a deliberate choice. Who would in their right mind choose to be gay when they know they will be relegated to a despised minority. On the contrary, they choose to wear masks and pretend to be straight. Yet opponents of gay rights choose to disregard these personal experiences and continue to portray homosexuality as a sinful choice that should be criminalised.
We are aware that the gay community has the responsibility to change the perception that the gay lifestyle is hedonistic and promiscuous. The straights have the problem of pursuing a hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle as well. The distinctive difference rests on having sexual intercourse with the same or opposite sex.
As I come alongside them, I sense their silent pain, I see their falling tears, I hear their aching hearts. Today I feel their rising hope for they are receiving affirmation, recovering dignity and restoring pride to be gay.
As I come alongside them, I sense their silent pain, I see their falling tears, I hear their aching hearts. Today I feel their rising hope for they are receiving affirmation, recovering dignity and restoring pride to be gay.
[Though I may not knowingly know any LGBT people, I can definitely relate to the pain and agony Yap is talking about. Everyone of us must our individual and sometime unique struggles and pains. Some of us knows that some of the things we do are not right and yet for some inexplicable reasons, we continue to do them. Understanding the pain and the struggle does not logically mean that we should legitimise the act.
Why would anyone choose to be gay if they knew they will be despised? I honestly don't know. Just as I don't know why people decide to do drugs knowing that it will cause harm to their bodies or why people still want to continue to commit adultery knowing that it will destroy the family. Actually, on second thought, I know the answer to the latter questions. The Bible says we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Without turning to God, we will all seek to satisfy our sinful nature.]
Why would anyone choose to be gay if they knew they will be despised? I honestly don't know. Just as I don't know why people decide to do drugs knowing that it will cause harm to their bodies or why people still want to continue to commit adultery knowing that it will destroy the family. Actually, on second thought, I know the answer to the latter questions. The Bible says we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Without turning to God, we will all seek to satisfy our sinful nature.]
They are hearing and believing what Victor Paul Furnish said: "It accords with the most fundamental witness of Scripture that one's sexuality is to be received as a good gift of God. Moreover, this gift is to be expressed in ways that manifest the grace of God -for there is not variance in the reality of God's love, which graces and claims us, whatever the particularities of our own time and place. As for sexual relationships, God's love can find clear expression only where the partners are fully committed and faithful to one another."
Homosexuality is therefore a gift from God to be accepted. It is not a result of human sin or the fallen nature because of Adam. We all have, by the grace of God, to live out the purposes of God, straight or gay, for we are all created by God.
Homosexuality is therefore a gift from God to be accepted. It is not a result of human sin or the fallen nature because of Adam. We all have, by the grace of God, to live out the purposes of God, straight or gay, for we are all created by God.
[Finally from Yap's lack of certainty about the cause of homosexuality to stating that it is a clear-cut medical/genetic condition, we have come to Yap's final unsubstantiated conclusion that homosexuality is a gift from God. It sounds almost as dogmatic as Christians saying that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible said so.
What's my position on the call for repeal? Actually, after saying so much, I think that it will be an eventuality because Singapore is a secular nation and in the same way that the nation do not criminalise divorce or abortion-on-demand, there is no rationale for Christians to demand that homosexuality remained a crime in Singapore.
My concerns are based more on the aftermath of the repeal. As distant as it may sound and as much as the LGBT community assured that these are not in the current agenda, the experiences of US, UK and Sweden have shown the eventuality of them happening.
I will only suggest that since the Singapore government always takes a systematic and comprehensive approach to issues, we should take the repeal with all the other implications as a complete package for deliberation. This will allow Singaporeans to deliberate the full implications of what LBGT community sees as a "necessary actions to promote greater civil rights of a growing minority" on the rest of the silent majority.]
Rev. Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore. Transcript of Dr. Yap Kim Hao's address at the Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church, Singapore on 10 May 07. Dr Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.
Read his earlier longer but similar essay here.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
The Loving God in the Old Testament
When I was still a young Christian, I had difficulties understanding some of the things that God commanded the Israelites to do in the Old Testament. By this, I am referring to those time when He commanded Israel to totally wipe out nations off the face of the earth. Even the Noahic Flood caused me to wonder whether there was indeed a difference in the God of the Old and New Testament. This question is continually being asked today by Christians and non-Christians alike though with different motives.
Actually, if people made the effort to carefully read the Bible in its entirety, then the only logical conclusion will be that God is unchanging and He is both the God of Love and Judgment.
Noah Flood
When God decided to destroy the entire world due their sin and the corruption of Satan, He actually gave the world 120 years to turn from their evil (Genesis 6:3) while Noah and his family did the "dumb" thing of building the gigantic ark. Can you imagine the sheer curiosity that would have been generated amongst the inhabitants on the earth to at least find out why this single family was doing? The Bible did not tell us what were the reactions of the people then but we can safely concluded that they did not believed them as no one other than Noah and his family got on the ark in the end. Was 120 years sufficient to bring a point across? I certainly believe so.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Leaving the reason why God would want to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah to another post, here we see, once again, God's compassion on mankind that He insists on giving us just one more opportunity to turn back to Him.
But before we go into that, Abraham had a interesting conversation (or bargain) with God on why He should not destroy entire cities if some good people can be found from amongst the cities. The "bargain" ended with God agreeing that He would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if He could find 10 such persons. We now know that only Lot and his 2 daughters were rescued (Lot's wife decided that she liked Sodom better and was turned into a pillar of salt). What this incident demonstrated is that God's compassion and patience is long-suffering.
The other point to note in this incident is that he chose to send 2 angels to investigate.
"And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom". (Genesis 18:20-21)
Why the need to do this when God is omniscience (all knowing)? Surely, He knows that wickedness of the people in that city. The only logical reason is that God wanted to give Sodom and Gomorrah one final opportunity to turn from their evilness. This was the same approach that God took with the city of Nineveh when He sent the prophet Jonah to preach repentance.
We know that Sodom and Gomorrah failed this final test and the 2 cities were destroyed.
The Canaanite Nations
What God did to the nations of Canaan has been used by detractors ad nauseum as proof that God is sadistic and seek out to destroy all lives of these nations, women and children.
"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
However, these people conveniently left out God's other instructions in the verses just before the passage mentioned above:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
So what are we to make of this discrepancy? To answer this "mystery", we need to go back to Genesis when God spoke to Abraham and broke to him the "bad" news that his descendants will not possess the Promised Land immediately and would in fact be enslaved by the Egyptians.
God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions... Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." (Genesis 15:13-16)
The Amorites was one of the Canaan nations and God was essentially telling Abraham that He was giving the Amorites another 400 years to repent or head towards self-destruction. What did they do to warrant such a complete destruction? In Leviticus 18:1-23, God listed down the many abominations that were not to be practised by the Israelites. God then pointed out:
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:24-25)
Why then did God also commanded the killing of the children? I do not claim to know the answers. But I can hazard a guess that if the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to their gods, it would have been no worse off than what God has decided to do. Granted, God could have used natural disasters or plagues to destroy these nations. However He has chosen to use Israel as an instrument to carry out justice. It did not mean that Israel itself was without sin and they deserved the land. In fact,
It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people. (Deuteromony 9:5-6)
Obviously, there are many more "difficult" passages the critics can throw at the Christians but with careful study and an open mind, it will not be difficult to reconcile the perceived God of Judgment of the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New Testament.
The morale of the story? Those who love the Lord need to know the Bible really well in order to give the reason for their faith.
Actually, if people made the effort to carefully read the Bible in its entirety, then the only logical conclusion will be that God is unchanging and He is both the God of Love and Judgment.
Noah Flood
When God decided to destroy the entire world due their sin and the corruption of Satan, He actually gave the world 120 years to turn from their evil (Genesis 6:3) while Noah and his family did the "dumb" thing of building the gigantic ark. Can you imagine the sheer curiosity that would have been generated amongst the inhabitants on the earth to at least find out why this single family was doing? The Bible did not tell us what were the reactions of the people then but we can safely concluded that they did not believed them as no one other than Noah and his family got on the ark in the end. Was 120 years sufficient to bring a point across? I certainly believe so.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Leaving the reason why God would want to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah to another post, here we see, once again, God's compassion on mankind that He insists on giving us just one more opportunity to turn back to Him.
But before we go into that, Abraham had a interesting conversation (or bargain) with God on why He should not destroy entire cities if some good people can be found from amongst the cities. The "bargain" ended with God agreeing that He would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if He could find 10 such persons. We now know that only Lot and his 2 daughters were rescued (Lot's wife decided that she liked Sodom better and was turned into a pillar of salt). What this incident demonstrated is that God's compassion and patience is long-suffering.
The other point to note in this incident is that he chose to send 2 angels to investigate.
"And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom". (Genesis 18:20-21)
Why the need to do this when God is omniscience (all knowing)? Surely, He knows that wickedness of the people in that city. The only logical reason is that God wanted to give Sodom and Gomorrah one final opportunity to turn from their evilness. This was the same approach that God took with the city of Nineveh when He sent the prophet Jonah to preach repentance.
We know that Sodom and Gomorrah failed this final test and the 2 cities were destroyed.
The Canaanite Nations
What God did to the nations of Canaan has been used by detractors ad nauseum as proof that God is sadistic and seek out to destroy all lives of these nations, women and children.
"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
However, these people conveniently left out God's other instructions in the verses just before the passage mentioned above:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
So what are we to make of this discrepancy? To answer this "mystery", we need to go back to Genesis when God spoke to Abraham and broke to him the "bad" news that his descendants will not possess the Promised Land immediately and would in fact be enslaved by the Egyptians.
God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions... Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." (Genesis 15:13-16)
The Amorites was one of the Canaan nations and God was essentially telling Abraham that He was giving the Amorites another 400 years to repent or head towards self-destruction. What did they do to warrant such a complete destruction? In Leviticus 18:1-23, God listed down the many abominations that were not to be practised by the Israelites. God then pointed out:
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:24-25)
Why then did God also commanded the killing of the children? I do not claim to know the answers. But I can hazard a guess that if the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to their gods, it would have been no worse off than what God has decided to do. Granted, God could have used natural disasters or plagues to destroy these nations. However He has chosen to use Israel as an instrument to carry out justice. It did not mean that Israel itself was without sin and they deserved the land. In fact,
It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people. (Deuteromony 9:5-6)
Obviously, there are many more "difficult" passages the critics can throw at the Christians but with careful study and an open mind, it will not be difficult to reconcile the perceived God of Judgment of the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New Testament.
The morale of the story? Those who love the Lord need to know the Bible really well in order to give the reason for their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)