Personal Views on Faith in Christ

2011-10-02T22:39:00.001+08:00

John Lennox on Hawking's Grand Design

N.T. Wright on his book After You Believe

2011-07-02T20:02:00.002+08:00

Virtue is a progressively learned behaviour emerging from each of the smallest decisions we make.

The Whole Sweep Of Scripture

2011-06-13T16:03:00.000+08:00

The Whole Sweep Of Scripture from The Work Of The People on Vimeo.

Inaccurate Teaching of the Scriptures by Joseph Prince

2011-05-31T19:09:00.002+08:00

This is an example of how we could misinterpret the scriptures by our lack of understanding and applying the wrong the interpretation as a teaching from the Lord. Joseph Prince took two verses from Luke 17:5-6 and interpret it as the Lord telling us that we should use the little faith in us to start commanding our issues and problems to go away by uttering the command in the Lord's Name. Joseph claimed that this is the Lord's answer to His disciples on how their faith can be increased. But is that what the Lord is saying in these two verses?

We need to first ask the question of why did the disciples ask for their faith to be increased. What was the situation that has occurred which prompted the disciples to ask the Lord to increase their faith? And since there is no other contextual information given in these two verses, we have to assume that the preceding verses form the context in which these two verses are to be interpreted.

If we look at the preceding verses in Luke 17, we find the Lord sternly warning the disciples that none of them should cause another disciple to sin and they were to watch over their fellow disciples in preventing them from sinning further if they were doing so. More than that, the Lord also commanded the disciples to forgive any disciple who sinned against them each time he or she repented. At no time, were the disciples allowed to withhold forgiveness from another brother when he repented of his sin and sought for forgiveness. The disciples were commanded to forgive regardless of how many times they were sinned against by the same brother.

Now this was a very difficult thing to do in the ancient times as it is now. Imagine ourselves being wronged and cheated by a sister or a brother in Christ not just once, but many times, repeatedly over and over again. Each time, he or she would genuinely repent and ask for our forgiveness. Will it be easy for us to follow the Lord's command to forgive in such situation when we have been repeatedly wronged by our fellow believer? What if this involve serious repercussions such as financial lost, physical harm or worse still, the cost of one's life? Will we be able to forgive such a person?

It takes a lot of faith and love to follow the Lord in such situations, to overcome the grief of losing something or someone whom you care and love dearly because of the sin, and to assuage the anger to exert punishment and take matters into your own hands. It takes an even greater faith to forgive the repenting brother or sister who wronged you, and to see to his or her restoration away from the sin he or she had committed. This is not an easy task. This needs great faith and love.

Now, is this the context, when the disciples suddenly realized that they were unable to follow the Lord's command to avoid sinning against one another, to watch over one another to prevent themselves from sinning, and to forgive and restore the repenting disciple, who had wronged them not just once, but repeatedly over and over again? Is this the context, where realizing they could not have faith to follow such a command from the Lord, the disciples decided to ask Jesus for more faith in order to obey His command?

What was the Lord's answer to the disciples? The issue was not about increasing their faith. The issue was about whether they have faith in the first place. If the disciples had just the tinniest of faith like a mustard seed, the 'mulberry tree' of not being able to forgive a brother who repeatedly sinned against them could be removed.

It is not about uttering or commanding the situation to go away. It is not about spiritual warfare and commanding demons to go away. It is not about commanding blessings to fall on us. It is about having the faith to act upon what God has commanded us to do and do it. Just the smallest action of faith like a mustard seed can snowball into the removal of the mulberry tree that obstruct us from obeying the Lord's command to avoid sin, keep others from sinning and forgive and restore those who repent of their sins.

This, I believe, is a more accurate interpretation of what the Lord was trying to teach His disciples 2000 years ago and more importantly, what the Holy Spirit is teaching us right now, warning us to avoid sin or causing others to sin, and commanding us to forgive those who sinned against us because if we don't, God will also not forgive us. Amen.

Practical Steps to Understanding the Bible

2011-05-26T09:21:00.003+08:00

Recent failure of a Christian leader in the US to predict the return of the Lord highlights the issue on how this brother could have so misread the Bible that he actually believed, and convincing others, that he knew when the Lord is going to return even though Jesus had explicitly said that no one will know the time except for the Father Himself. This is a serious issue of grotesquely misreading the Bible which led to dire consequences.

We must not be proud and tell ourselves that just because ancient texts of 2000 years old have been translated to modern English, we can read and understand them without any aid or guidance in the comfort of our living rooms. Try reading Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, or Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews or War of the Jews which were written about the same time when the New Testament was penned down. Or the more recent writings of Shakespeare. Or Sun Tzu's Art of War or Confucius' Analects.

You will find that it is not easy at all to properly understand these ancient and old texts because they were written in another cultural and historical context by people living in different times and for people living in circumstances far different from ours. Thus, it is essential that we source out some references such as bible commentaries, dictionaries and background commentaries to provide better understanding and avoid making wrong decisions and actions based on our own wrong interpretations of the Bible.

Here I offer some simple practical steps which you might find helpful while reading the Bible.

First step is to ask the correct questions.

Questions

Concerning What Actually Happened
1. What were the events that the author was writing about?
2. Who were the people in these events?
3. What were the historical and cultural contexts in which these events occurred?
4. How did the characters in these events relate to each other?
5. What did these characters talk about?
6. What did they do?
7. Why did they speak and act in such manners?

Concerning the Author and the Audience
1. What were the reasons for the author to write the texts?
2. How did the author understand these events that he was writing about?
3. What were the issues he was trying to raise?
4. What were the answers he was trying to give?
5. What were the historical and cultural contexts in which the author wrote the texts?
6. Who were the people he was writing to?
7. What were the historical and cultural contexts in which the audience lived?

Concerning Application
1. What teachings can we learn from the meanings of the events and from the authors' intention?
2. How similar was their situation to ours?
3. How can we apply the teachings to our own situations and actions?
4. Are we misreading the Bible using our modern historical and cultural contexts?
5. Are we misreading the Bible by forcing our own preconceived ideas onto the meanings of the events and the intentions of the ancient authors?

Second step is to be aware of language use.

Language Tools

Word Use
1. Keep an eye on words which are repeatedly used by the same author in the same text or in different texts.
2. Compare the different situations in which the same words are used by the same author in the same text or in different texts.
3. Are there differences in meanings to these words when used by the same author in the same text or in different texts?

Logical Connectives
1. Pay attention to how connective words like but, because, therefore, when etc.
2. These connective words link the passages of the text to give a more thorough and comprehensive meaning to the passages that the author wrote.

Meanings of Words within the Sentence and Paragraph
1. Try to understand the meanings of words used within a sentence or sentences, and better still within a paragraph or clusters of paragraphs.
Comparing Different Texts
2. Comparing meanings of similar topics and themes in different texts of the Bible and written by different authors.

Final step, use bible commentaries and dictionaries. Books by good authors also help.

References
1. Study bibles
2. Bible commentaries
3. Background commentaries
4. Maps and images
5. Good books

Last but not least, join a bible study group such as the ones on Wednesdays and Fridays. Interpretation of texts is better done and more accurate with check and balance from a group of believers. See you during bible studies! ;-)

Why is it holy?

2011-04-01T12:39:00.005+08:00

The recent statement from a local bishop identifying the stamping of Malay bibles with the authorization mark by the country's home security ministry as as an of desecration to a holy object has got me thinking about the question of holiness and how it is tied to an object, person or place. Due to the emotions this statement has stirred up among believers in this country and the social and political consequences that follow it, I think it is wise to think through the issue in a more biblical way. By biblical, I am trying to find out from the bible how early believers understood the meaning of holiness. This is important because we can easily transfer what we understand about holiness in our current culture to the scriptures as if what we perceive now is what the early Christians understood in the first century as recorded in the New Testament. Our first principle is try to understand what it means to be holy as how it was perceived by the brethren in the first century. This is what it means to be biblical.

A quick survey of the New Testament shows that believers viewed several categories of items with the potential to be considered holy. These included both tangible items such as objects, places, persons, physical bodies, actions and intangible items like thoughts in our hearts or minds. The next question to be asked is why did they consider some of these items to be holy? How did they demarcate items as holy or unholy? What is the criterion used?

The answer is not that the items could be holy on it's own as if they are somehow holy in their very nature and character, and that they function as a holy item on their own without any relationship to a source that made them holy. The reason why these items are deemed holy is because they have been associated with God through His commands, and the obedience of believers in performing these commandments allowed the items acted upon, while the commands are being carried out, to be considered holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 1 Pet. 1:14-16). The moment the commandments are no longer followed or disobeyed, then the items lose their holy status. That is why the temple can be deemed holy as a house of prayer by the Lord, and at the same time, He would condone its desecration by its utter destruction (Mark 13:1-2).

Therefore, objects, places, persons, bodies, actions and thoughts were viewed as holy by the early believers not because of the nature of these items, but they were deemed holy because of the relationship to God, which was established by the action of following His commands, which subsequently gave the temporal status of holiness to the items, in which the commandments were associated with.

Thus, we could also conclude that the status of holiness is a temporal state as long as the commandments are followed and the status would be withdrawn when disobedience arises. The act of disobedience will be considered as an act of defiling the holy status of the items. Actually, in most English translations of the New Testament, the word defile is more frequently use than the word desecrate although their meanings are closely associated. In more literal translations, there is only one or two instances (Dan. 11:31; Acts 24:6), if my memory does not fail me, of the word desecrate being used by non-believers to describe the act of, again, disobeying God command by bringing now-Jews into the Jerusalem temple ground. The holiness of the temple is again associated with a command from God rather than the temple itself containing it's own holy nature. As long as the commandments of God concerning the temple is kept, it is deemed holy. When they are not, even the temple can be defiled by total destruction as prophesied by the Lord (Matt. 21:1-2; Luke 21:5-6).

Now, with this being the biblical understanding of the word 'holy', how should be consider the action of the home ministry? Is it an act of desecration as pronounced by the bishop or otherwise? Using what has been established earlier, we can say that the bible on its own is just a physical print of papers. But it is holy because it is related to God as the commandments of God are found in it (Rom. 7:12). Nevertheless, the commandments found in the bible are not for the bible itself, it is for us as believers to follow. Thus, obeying the commandments of God in the bible would deem us holy in the sight of God, a temporal status of holiness bestowed on us by God when we keep His commandments. The bible cannot act out these commandments on its own, it is a container and it points us towards Jesus and His commands (John 5:39-40), beseeching us to obey. Unlike the temple of God or its utensils, the bible does not have a set of commands given by God on what can be done to the book itself and what can't be done.

So while the temple can be defiled or desecrated by disobeying God's commandment concerning it, the bible has no such command. God did not order the bible to be compiled just as He ordered the Israelites to build the temple, or the ark or the tabernacle. While there are commandments which can be broken concerning the the latter objects or places, there is no such command for the bible as an object. The bible is a collection of texts compiled by the early Christians to remember all God inspired scriptures or writings in order that none of them be lost or forgotten as more and more apostles and leaders die due to old age or persecution. The bible contains the commandments of God for us to follow in order that we may be holy rather than making the bible itself holy. Therefore, the bible is holy not because it can be defiled by some action upon it, rather it is holy because it contains the inspired word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Thus, while the action of the home ministry is insensitive to the rights of minority groups to practice their faith and beliefs, it is only in such legal and political sense that it is considered deplorable and a violation of basic human rights. It is in this sense that it should be contested and challenged, and as Christians, in a way that would reflect the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. But it should not be considered as an act of desecration or defilement equivalent to the destruction of the temple of God or the worst act of desecration in human history, the crucifixion of out Lord Jesus Christ. "Forgive them for they know not what they are doing." May God grant us the love to endure and show His glory. Amen.

Reading Genesis

2011-01-21T18:48:00.002+08:00

In the debate on the origins of the universe, two major camps squabble it out. The scientific and the creationist community. What people fail to understand about the reliability of the book of Genesis in relation to scientific and religious views is that both camps championing the demise of the other have failed to realize an important principle in reading the ancient book. That principle is the principle of contextualization. To be more precise, it is the principle that we must understand the book was written for a specific group of people in ancient times. It was meant to be read and heard by a specific group of ancient community in which the book was recorded. It was not written for scientific reasons or views of reality where reality is seen as nothing more than naturally occurring matter. For this reason, scientifically or wanting to be perceived as scientifically minded people judge the book of Genesis as unreliable or nonsensical. The religious proponents use the same natural view of reality as matter to read into the book and force others to submit to the demands that reality in material sense must be seen in terms of how it was described in the book. Both views are wrong. Imagine how the ancient community would have understood a scientific explanation on the origins of the universe and human kind based on our current popular views of big bang and evolution. Imagine how they would understand these scientific models. It would make no sense to the audience of the ancient text. Thus, when God inspired the writing of the book, it was meant for the level of comprehension based on the audience of that particular ancient context. It was never meant to be read according to our contemporary view of reality which is dominated by scientific perspective. It was never meant to be understood in the literal sense where reality is merely described as observable matter alone. Both camps using this viewpoint has done harm to the understanding of book and subsequently drawn a wrong conclusion that the book of Genesis is unreliable because the reality that it described is not the same as what we know now through our scientific knowledge. It was never meant to be understood as such in the first place!

Light as a feather?

2010-11-03T13:37:00.000+08:00

Some well-intended brethren often offer to their fellow brothers and sisters in faith who are struggling with heavy burdens of all sorts the theological solution that they need to ask whether they are following God's will with the assumption that if they are 'flowing' in His will, then all things will be easy because they quote the Lord saying that His burdens and load are light. It gives the impression that by ensuring that we are in God's will, then all things will work out smoothly and almost 'magically' for us that we will not experience any sort of human emotional struggle or stress.

Is this true? Is this biblical?

One only needs to look at the only human being who had followed God's will perfectly to find the answer, Jesus. Did our Lord feel the pain and emotional stress of the impending crucifixion as a normal human being would? Did everything work out smoothly for him in our modern human sense where everything will fall into place accordingly? Certainly not. If we expand our search to the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New Testament, we could easily see that following God's will does not necessary exempt us from the usual stress and suffering as any normal human being would in such circumstances.

The well-intended solution of asking whether we are out of God's will based on the evidence that we are suffering the stress and burden of our circumstances could end up placing the one querying the distressed party in similar position with those who used the same argument against Job, namely, that he must had done something awfully wrong since he was suffering so much.

The well-intended solution could eventually make the already distressed brethren more distraught and if his situation does not improve despite his intense sincerity to follow God's will, he may end up disillusioned and give up totally. In such a case, the well-meant solution has become a death noose around his neck. No doubt that some of us suffer because we are truly running away from His will and also because of our own human frailty e.g. sinfulness, laziness, foolish, lack of confidence etc. However, we need to be more careful or biblical in offering well-intended solution to those who are 'heavy laden'.

Why Peter and not Paul?

2010-10-31T00:36:00.001+08:00

Watching a brilliant BBC program on the Vatican in high definition, I can't help but wonder. Why did the church place so much honour on the legacy of Peter in Rome when Paul could have been the most influential apostle amongst the Gentile churches in the Greco-Roman world?

It makes me wonder what has Peter done for the Greek-speaking churches that would make them remember and cherish Peter more than Paul? From the New Testament writings, especially from the book of Acts, there is hardly any evidence of Peter's influence on these churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Italy. No doubt, part of the purpose for writing the book of Acts would be to legitimize the ministry of Paul amongst the Gentile believers as a continuation of the commandment from the Lord and an extension to the work of the earlier apostles in Palestine and Syria. That could have been the reason why Peter's work is so overshadowed by Paul's. Yet, it is quite reasonable to say that Peter is more comfortable with the work amongst Jewish believers rather than Gentiles given the descriptions that we get from the narrative in the book of Acts. And I think there is good reason to believe that Luke is more then merely being bias towards Paul, which of course, does come into consideration. I think there is enough evidence to say that Peter was indeed more comfortable to be the leader of the Jewish believers rather than the Gentiles.

So, why would his influence surpass Paul's in Rome which by large has a larger Gentile population? Why would Peter be going to Rome in the first place? Surely, Peter would have arrived much later than Paul after Claudius' death. Did he visit Paul during his imprisonment which I think Paul has hardly mentioned in his letter? So, there is really not much information on the reason why Peter went to Rome? Paul's journey to Rome is very much substantiated because he appealed to Caesar against the Jews who tried to harm him. On another note, if we are to consider the level of influence on Jewish believers, James, the brother of Jesus, would definitely have a higher pecking order compared to Peter. So, it is really difficult to understand why Peter's legacy has surpassed Paul's in Rome. Why the catholic church did not remember the contributions of Paul and James more than Peter's is an interesting point of speculation.

Is it because of the Lord's remark that he would build his church upon the foundation of Peter? Or is it because the legacy of Peter was specifically chosen by the later Western Church in the 4th and 5th century to legitimize their political strength based on the Lord' saying in influencing and deciding on critical doctrinal debates and arguments? Personally, I would speculate that the current honour given to Peter in the form of the Vatican and papacy is very much a creation of the Western churches in the later centuries rather than something which the first century churches have practiced.

Signs of times?

2010-10-29T13:39:00.000+08:00

It both sadden and appalls me to see the following being advertised on a Facebook page.

------------
I was called to apostleship in 1996, when it was not popular. He travels extensively and is called "The great prince", of the Apostolic Movement. Apostle [...] operates heavily in healing, deliverance and the prophetic ministry. Apostle [...] is a book author, psalmist and songwriter. Many signs and wonders follow in services such as the lame walking, the opening of blinded eyes and deaf ears. There are many other manifestations such as oil that supernaturally appears and then pours from his hands.

Apostle [...] is the founder of W.A.R. World Apostolic Regime. Global fellowship and the church called the Dwelling Place Tabernacle and K.A.P.S. Kingdom Apostolic Prophetic School. Apostle [...] is currently working on a doctorate degree in Ministry.

PLEASE NO FOOLISHNESS OR NEGATIVITY ON THIS MINISTRY PAGE!

Do you need more than just a prophecy, do you need specific insight or direction for one or more specific areas? W.A.R. Ministries offer Prophetic consultations one on one for just a $50 SEED.

As you sow to us you assist us in spreading the Gospel in not only this country but many other nations as well. Please call (405)[...] for availability. There are ministry partners standing by.

SOW A MIRACLE FAITH SEED BELOW ON PAYPAL
--------------------

This is why the name of Christ is blasphemed daily by those who do not know Jesus. Yes, we see Paul introducing himself as an apostle appointed by God in his letters to the first century churches, but the kind of humility in Paul and the great length he took in not promoting himself are somehow missing from these self-appointed apostles and prophets. Only when the faith and spiritual well-being of his young Gentile churches which he planted were in danger by the teachings of false brethren trying to lure them away for their own gain, did he state his claim and testimony as an apostle, and even that, was solely done for the sake of his spiritual sons and daughters. He went to great length not to burden his young churches from supporting his ministry. Only when he saw a dire need to bring together the churches in Jerusalem and the rest of the Gentile world, did he start to collect the offering meant for the elevation of suffering of the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and Palestine.

The proliferation of self-appointed apostles and prophets who works in a similar fashion as a normal consultant would do, marketing their credentials, and if you have a need, pay the 'spiritual' consultation fees, is turning the ministry of Christ to a marketing scheme. This is exactly the reason why Jesus overturned the money changers, saying that the sanctity of the temple had become a den of thieves. Is this the sign of times mentioned by the Lord concerning the arrival of false christs, apostles and prophets? He who has ears let them hear indeed.

History and interpretation

2010-10-29T00:54:00.000+08:00

"Always in need of money, Agrippa accepted a bribe to influence a border dispute between Sidon and Damascus, and when it came to the ears of Flaccus, Agrippa found himself again destitute of friends and money, with only creditors seeking his company. With the help of his mother and wife, Agrippa managed to raise loans in Ptolemais, and particularly in Alexandria, where, Alexander, the brother of Philo, funded him. From there he returned to Rome in spring of 36, first presenting himself to Tiberius on Capri and then making friends with Gauis Caligula. This pursuit of influence was expensive, so Agrippa continued borrowing against his future prospects and spending on the best guarantor of his prospects, Gauis Caligula." (except from Vines Intertwined)

Does this sound familiar? Perhaps this was a common practice in the Lord's time as he mentioned a similar thing in the following phrase.

Luke 16:9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by how you use worldly wealth, so that when it runs out you will be welcomed into the eternal homes. (NET Bible)

Of course, the Lord was not condoning mismanagement of funds belonging to others. Just that he was using a common corrupt practice of his time to illustrate the point of being faithful stewards and using money wisely. It goes to show that knowing the cultural context and history of the time does help to understand the Lord's sayings a lot better.

What was the word of God in the first 20 years?

2010-10-28T14:57:00.001+08:00

What did the believers living in the first century, more precisely between the time of Jesus' death and the first written gospel, have to know about Jesus and to believe in him?

Basically, how did the believers hear about Jesus and start to believe in him? If there were no written gospels in the first 20 years or so between the Lord's death and the first written account of him, then the gospels must have been orally transmitted. If we read the book of Acts as the evidence of what was told to non-believers, both Jewish or Greeks, then we will see a variety of flavors on how Jesus is being presented to audience of different context, both cultural and geographical. Sometimes, if not most of the times, the evangelists would face persecutions or troubles. Yet, strangely, people were drawn to the message and believed. This could be attributed to the accompanying miracles performed by some of them. And some of these evangelists or apostles were actual eyewitnesses of events and words spoken by Jesus.

So, what did they have? The first century believers from 33 A.D. to approximately 60 A.D. did not have what we call the written New Testament. They most probably did not have a written Old Testament as well because most ordinary believers might not be literate or have enough money to own one.

What they had was the oral account which they heard from the apostles or other disciples coming from Jerusalem or Palestine. They had seen the accompanying miracles performed by some of time which cemented their faith. And they could have continued to encourage other another in small house meetings by retelling the stories told to them by the apostles and the first disciples. They could have sang songs of remembrance and worship concerning the stories of Jesus. Coupled with praying and having communion together, and the memory of their baptism, these were the essential mediums or repertoires they had to learn, know and remember the Lord before the written gospels and letters from Paul.

So what does this tell us? Two current concerns cross my mind. One, those, especially brethren from the charismatic and word of faith movement, who claim that all we need is the word of God and walk in it without thinking much about it, as if the shear utterance of the verses in the bible would invoke some sort of magical mechanism that would oblige God to do what we have claimed in our utterance, need to rethink what the word of God means, especially the often quoted verse in Romans concerning faith that arises from the hearing of the word. Paul was definitely not referring to the written gospels or his letters. He was most likely referring to what he or other witnesses had said about Jesus to other churches which he had planted elsewhere in the Mediterranean. So, the word of God is more nuance than how we understand and apply today.

Second, for those who denies the workings of the Holy Spirit today, claiming a dispensation model where the perfect bible has excluded the need of the gifts from the Spirit, need to evaluate what the word of God was to the believers in the first twenty over years or as a matter of fact, in the subsequent centuries before the canonization of the bible. If the oral proclamation of the word of God was affirmed by God through the workings of the Spirit in the Lord's name, then why would it be considered peculiar or abnormal that the preaching of the word of God from the written Scriptures not be confirmed with the same workings of the Spirit from God if he so please to honor the name of his Son, our Lord?

Paul's challenge to the emperor

2010-10-27T20:13:00.000+08:00

With a master stroke, Paul manages to imply a direct challenge to the authority of the Roman emperors with just a short and condensed verse in his letter to the church at the empire's capital.

Perhaps with Claudius' death as an immediate context, the following verse challenges the deification of successive Roman emperors starting from Augustus to Nero's dead baby.

Romans 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The first challenge is the appointment. Unlike the emperors who are deified by human agency either through the senate or the emperor himself, Jesus is appointed the Son of God not by human means, but by God Himself.

The second challenge is very obvious. Whereas the emperors are usually deified after their death, Jesus is deified because he is alive. Jesus' justification to be appointed the Son of God is because he defeated death through his resurrection.

With this comes the final challenge, demoting the power and lordship of the dead and live emperors to one that is below whom the Christians truly acknowledge as their king and the true Lord of the world.

The universe and God

2010-09-26T20:43:00.001+08:00

It seems strange that Dawkins who so love naturalism could not see the parallel between a God who is both merciful to save and righteous to judge with bodies of universe such as stars, our sun and even our own planet, which could provide the building blocks of life and to nurture its growth and at the same time holds the devastating potential to eliminate everything in a single instance. There is no paradox for a merciful God and a God who judges to deliver the righteous and the weak.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.0

Discrimination and a biblical response

2010-09-18T22:24:00.001+08:00

Sometimes, to get to an answer we need to ask questions. Not only to ask questions, we need to ask the right questions.

So, concerning today's topic on discrimination, we also need to ask the right questions. We need to ask;

1. What is discrimination?
2. How do we respond to it as Christians?

Our first thought on discrimination will inevitably go to racial discrimination due to our Malaysian context. That is a reasonable thought of course.

But is discrimination limited to just racial motivations? Are there any other forms of discrimination?

Is there a social economic discrimination in terms of education, class, income group etc.? Is there a gender discrimination? Is there a generation gap discrimination? Is there a moral discrimination? Is there a geographical discrimination? Is there a political discrimination? And how about discrimination against those who are handicapped?

In a very broad sense, we can discriminate in almost any way. We can discriminate against someone who could not use another language. Banana man for example? We can discriminate against someone because they do not wear the clothes we wear, hang out at places we do, do the things we do, use the gadgets we use, and even believing in the things we do.

So what is discrimination. In the simplest of sense, discrimination means denying someone something simply based on a factor that does not fairly provide a reason why the person is denied access to that something. Too difficult? Discrimination means denying someone something based on invalid reasons. For example, denying freedom to someone infected with a highly infectious disease by quarantine for a limited time is not considered discrimination or imprisonment whereas denying someone freedom because he is of a certain race is.

Let’s look at examples of discrimination in the New Testament before looking reviewing the biblical response. What are the examples that you can think of?

Here is a list of examples.
1. Nazareth being discriminated by Nathanael.
2. Social discrimination against those considered sinful e.g., lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes etc.
3. Discrimination of the Roman empire in taxation against subjugated people, only citizens are exempted.
4. Discrimination against non-citizens. Paul had better privileges as a citizen.
5. Discrimination against Gentiles. Jews do not share their inherited promises from God with outsiders.
6. Discrimination against slaves
7. Discrimination against Samaritans. Jews considered their neighbours as half-breeds.
8. Discrimination against Jews. Romans considered Jews as troublemakers.

There are of course many others if you read the Bible more carefully, especially in the Old Testament. But what is important is not the comprehensive listing of all the examples. What is important is to look at how the Lord and faithful believers responded to discrimination and from there, learn how to respond to the discrimination we face in our current day and situation.

Let's look at how our Lord responded to some of the examples above.
1. Jesus ignored and accepted Nathaniel
2. Jesus walked away when they questioned his birth, authority and wanted to kill him.
3. Jesus engaged and reconciled tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, Samaritans, Romans
4. Jesus rebuked not those who questioned his racial identity, but their sin against the Holy Spirit.
5. Jesus obeyed and paid taxes
7. Jesus died and forgave even those who murdered him.
8. Despite being submitted to discrimination as Jew, Paul preached to all.
9. God's purpose is to reconcile all to Him, regardless of race and culture. (Titus chapter 3)

When we are discriminated by those in power like in the case of the Jews by the Roman empire, how should we respond? Do we respond like how the Jews responded when they thought Paul brought Gentiles into the temple? Do we respond in violence and in more exclusivity, having laws that even forbade the Jews from entering the houses of the Gentiles? Or do we like Paul, imitate Christ, and share the gospel to all for the benefit of all? Do we as Chinese band together in exclusivity, especially economically and deny other races the benefit? Or do we act like Paul and share the gospel for the benefit of all?

Responding like the Samaritan
1. Is it easy to do?
2. Does it benefit you buy now?
3. Is it the right thing to do as a Christian?

If we are able to act like the Samaritan, we have shown love to our enemies. We have obeyed God. We have acted like Jesus. We have shown Jesus to the world. And we will be rewarded like Jesus. Our suffering now cannot be compared to the Lord's suffering. It cannot be compared to the rewards from the Father in the end.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Jesus' life and ours

2010-09-18T02:27:00.001+08:00

I find the stages in Jesus' life quite similar to our own Christian life. I could see how our conversion and baptism is similar to Jesus' own baptism. I could see how we can associate God's pronouncement that Jesus is His Son in whom He is well pleased with how God declares us righteous by faith when we believe and is baptized. In other words, this is God's justification or declaration that we are His children on the basis of faith. I can see that God the Father has also declared Jesus as His Son on the basis of faith during the Lord's baptism when He has yet to do anything. I could see why Jesus said this was to fulfill all righteousness as if to show that God's declaration of Him as the beloved Son was not due to His obedience towards the Law but instead due to His faith to follow what the Father had told Him to do. I could see how this justification by faith that Jesus is God's Son will in the end be proven correct through God's resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection in the end confirms what God has pronounced earlier during the baptism. And God confirms this not by what Jesus has accumulated by the merit of His works, but by the faith that Jesus had which produces works of love, namely His death on the cross ultimately. I could see that this is related to how we should live as Christians after we believed. We need to continue in the faith, submitting our will to the Spirit just as Jesus did to the Father even to the point of death on the cross in order to be finally confirmed as God's children through the final resurrection which Paul had also longed for. Thus, I can understand better the meaning of justification by faith in our current stage of Christian life and the final justification or confirmation that we are indeed God's children as pronounced initially during our conversion. This happens when we are resurrected in the end after a life of work-producing walk of faith to hear once again God declaring us as His people in the final judgement.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Ezekiel 37, Lazarus and Paul

2010-09-13T16:57:00.001+08:00

Reading Ezekiel 37 last Sunday, I realise that this chapter could be connected to Jesus' miracle in resurrecting Lazarus and to the development of the understanding of resurrection in 2nd Temple Judaism shown by Paul and the Pharisees.

First, the resurrection of the dry bones was a sign to the exiled Jews at Babylon that the LORD is their God. The dry bones were the symbolic of Israel's spiritual state. Lazarus' dead body was literally the representation of Israel's dead spiritual state, not recognising Jesus as the Lord. The literal resurrection of Lazarus was to remind Israel of Ezekiel 37. Israel was supposed to understand the symbolic association between Lazarus and Ezekiel 37. Unfortunately, they did not and the true meaning of the resurrection was hidden from their eyes.

Second, I believe that the strong emphasis the Pharisees and Paul held over the hope of resurrection as the promise given to Israel by God could be due to Ezekiel 37. Paul in his public defence recorded in Acts had indicated that the hope of all Israel and the reason for him to adhere to the strictest form of Pharisaic practices was the hope of resurrection. Resurrection would meant that the Lord was with Israel and God's kingdom had arrived as promised by God in Ezekiel 37. When Paul saw the resurrected Lord, he finally understood Ezekiel 37 and Jesus' true identify and mission. This was the reason for his repentance and his emphasis on resurrection in the gospel he preached.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Loads of Treasure at Scribd

2010-04-09T14:02:00.001+08:00

Check out what I found at Scribd.

Piper on Wright - Future of Justification 1

2010-02-28T00:36:00.000+08:00

It feels strange that Thomas Schreiner should say that N.T. Wright was harsh in his language when describing John Piper's work in his new book on justification which is a direct response to Piper's earlier writing. Reading the first 20 pages, one could not help but to feel that Piper is already positioning Wright in the readers' mental perception that Wright is offering 'another' non-biblical gospel much like the challenge encountered by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. In other words, Wright is to be considered dangerous even though Piper overtly says that he is not equating Wright as a heretic. However, as a reader, you just feel that Piper is saying exactly what he intends to say, that Wright is dangerously wrong and Christians should turn away from his teachings and writings.

Compared this to how Wright positions Piper in an analogy as a person who insists that the sun revolves around the earth, it comes no where close to the kind of accusations that Piper is making of Wright in the first 20 pages of his book.

This entry sets the stage for, I hope, a series of short comments on the two books written by Wright and Piper in their polemic on justification.

4th sermon at Kepong EFC

2010-01-31T21:12:00.001+08:00

Knowing Jesus by the Spirit

This is my fourth sermon at KEFC. I am thankful to God for this privilege. Here is a recap of my earlier sermons. My first was on God’s way in dealing with evil. Second was on the power of Scriptures in changing lives. The third was on knowing Jesus through history, Scriptures and the Spirit. Now, why do I recall these? It is because my personal experience while preparing for these sermons was that God has always confirmed to me through various means on the main points which I need to deliver. The same occurs for this morning’s message. I was actually struggling a bit for today’s message, but God has graciously confirmed the main topic last Sunday. And on Friday, during the bible study at Carina’s house, without Teck Lee’s or anyone’s knowledge, He confirmed again the main points which I need to stress today.

So, what is my message today? It is experiencing the reality of God through the work of the Spirit. And I have just mentioned one example which is to listen and discern the will of God by experiencing the reality of the Spirit. In my case, it is listening to the witness of the Spirit in confirming the message for today. And this experience can be really exhilarating and encouraging.

Signs and wonders

I realise that it is a very difficult task to talk about the work of the Spirit comprehensively a 30 minutes sermon. So, I am going to be selective and concentrate on only on part of the Spirit’s work, i.e. signs and wonders.

No one reading the four gospels will miss the supernatural events of Jesus turning water to wine, healing the sick, casting out demons, making the lame walk, opening the eyes of the blind, feeding of the hungry masses, walking on water and calming the storm, raising the dead and being himself resurrected from the grave. No one reading the book of Acts will miss the miraculous and powerful working of the Spirit both on the apostles and through them. Speaking in tongues, making the lame walk, given courage to witness, raising the dead, seeing and meeting the resurrected Lord, healing the sick, casting out demons, surviving the mobs and poisonous snake bites etc.

Does it happen today? Is it for us in the age of science, logical reasoning and special effects? We will have to delay a bit the answer to that question.

Scriptures on signs and wonders

First, let us take a look at what the bible says about the matter. What is the meaning of signs and wonders? The miracles that our Lord performed signalled the arrival of the promised kingdom of God. (Luke 4:18-19) Jesus was telling the people of his time that what they were seeing was the sign that God has returned to Israel as promised through the Messiah, Jesus.

The Lord also explained that these miracles were accomplished through the Holy Spirit which again signalled that the kingdom of God has arrived. (Luke 11:20) It signalled the destruction of Satan’s power. (Luke 10:17-20)

For the apostles, signs and wonders was God’s witness to the gospel that they were preaching. (Mark 16:15-20) During times of persecution and intimidation, the miraculous works of the Spirit serves to encourage the believers to be bold in continuing their witness for the Lord. (Acts 4:29-31)

Problem of missing signs

Now, back to our earlier question? What about now? There seems to be problem. We do not seem to experience such miraculous works of the Holy Spirit that we read in the gospels and Acts. There seems to be a disparity between our experiences and that of the Scriptures. How do we explain this?

How much do you know about World War 2? How much do you know about D-Day or Operation Overlord? For the sake of those who do not know, let me explain. D-Day is the biggest concentrated military operation in history to land thousands of Allied troops on the beaches of Normandy, in France, for the purpose of defeating the Nazis. The operation began with clever misinformation and strategic deception on the exact location of the landing to prevent the Nazis from concentrating their defences. This was followed by the night droppings of thousands of paratroopers to occupy strategic places inland to prevent the Nazis from reinforcing their troops after the operation has started. Next, came the aerial and naval bombardments. This was done to weaken Hitler’s Atlantic Wall, a formidable stretch of military defences of bunkers, gun posts, barriers, and mines, beginning from Norway and right down to France. Finally, the brave marines stormed the shore in hails of machine guns fire and exploding mines. When the beachheads were secured with the blood and lives of these brave soldiers, an entire harbour was floated across the English Channel to Normandy, allowing reinforcements to arrive and sustain the campaign. Although, Hitler and the Nazis did not surrender on that day, D-Day signified the beginning of the end of Nazi power and World War 2. Many gruelling battles still have to be fought and gruesome defeats to be swallowed, and with much lesser support compared to D-Day. But, the victory was achieved on D-Day.

We can make an analogy between D-Day and the miraculous signs during Jesus’ time. The enormous frequency of signs and wonders signalling the arrival of God’s kingdom is equivalent to the droppings of paratroopers, massive aerial and naval bombardments, and the landings of the marines. It signals the beginning of God’s operation to defeat Satan. And the victory is achieved the moment the spiritual beachhead is taken through the life and blood of Jesus Christ. Victory is achieved. Subsequently, the engineering marvel of a floating harbour is like the giving of the Holy Spirit, the perfect Reinforcement to stir us forward and enable us to continue the war until the spiritual Hitler is totally defeated.

However, from the D-Day of Jesus’ time to the final judgement of Satan in the future, there are still many battles and unfortunate defeats to taste by believers. And unlike the time of Jesus and the apostles where signs and wonders were frequent to establish the ‘spiritual beachhead’ for building the church, we are now in a period where we have to endure tough battles without the heavy artillery of signs and wonders. This is due to the difference in the timeline of God’s plan. When Jesus was with the disciples, they did not need to fast, but when the Lord was no longer with them, they have to fast. (Matthew 9:15) The same principle applies to signs and wonders.

In addition, the current culture of self-centeredness, biases of scientific reasoning and revived spiritualism serves to enthrone man in the place of God, making faith towards him ever more difficult. (Mark 6:5-6) Am I saying that there are no more signs and wonders? No, I am not, just that the frequency has been reduced due to these reasons, i.e. God’s timeline and the unbelief of man.

The work of the Spirit in my life

God will indeed perform his signs and wonders to establish his rule, to destroy the works of the evil one, and to confirm the witnessing of his faithful so that others too may believe and be saved. I could recount numerous miracles in my life. The way I got my name was from hearing God directly telling me this exact phrase, “Today your name shall be called Israel.” There was a time when I had no money to return home. I had 20 cents left. I was about to call home from two public phones. I was about to use the one on the right when I felt impressed by the Spirit to use the one on the left. I did and the phone did not work! Now, I had no money left. I asked God why. Then, I down the phone. Guess what, coins rolled out from the exchange the slot! I had enough money to go home. When, I was in varsity, while I was with a pastor in the canteen, the Spirit suddenly came upon me and I told him that it will rain in 20 minutes. He was shocked. It was broad daylight! But, on my way back to my hostel, in the distance, I heard the faint sound of a thunder. It was the sign that I needed. And at exactly prophesied earlier, it rained cats and dogs. The result was that I became bold enough even to tell my friends about it. There were and still are many more incidents of such workings of the Holy Spirit. Meeting Austin’s brother and giving him a warning about his church, speaking and praying for Uncle Yong last week and this message all came about from the leading of the Spirit. Having the Scriptures flooding my mind while witnessing, sharing or teaching others is a gift from the Spirit that is very real. This kind of fellowship of the Spirit is indeed very real. But, we must never generalize specific work of the Spirit as a rule that all believers must live on. Signs and wonders are not to be used like Scriptures to give us doctrines to live by.

The main work of the Spirit

However, the purpose of the Holy Spirit is not about signs and wonders, nor spiritual gifts. The Spirit did not come to give us spiritual gifts so that we can become spiritual superstars and achieving supernatural success in the world. He did not come to allow us to make spiritual claims of health and wealth as and when we demand it. In fact, the Lord has warned of such things in Matthew 7:21-23.

The main work of the Spirit is to glorify and remind us of Jesus and his words, and to teach us that we may obey him and remain in him, knowing God and be known by him. (John 14:26; John 16:12-14) The Spirit will also convict people of their sins because of their unbelief, to tell the world that Jesus and his followers are right while the people and the ruler of this world are wrong and that they will be judged. The Spirit is the guarantor of our salvation and adoption. (Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22)

Practical living

How then are we to respond to signs and wonders? Firstly, acknowledge that our God is constantly involved in our lives by the presence of the Spirit and that signs and wonders are to be expected according to the reasons stated earlier although the frequency is lower compared to Jesus and the apostles’ time. Secondly, we need to seek God to graciously grant us the fellowship of the Spirit that we may know Jesus and God. This fellowship could be in the form of the Spirit’s leading through a still small voice to a miraculous sign involving great faith and resulting in salvation for those around us. Always remember that the greatest is love and we abide in his love by obeying his commandments which is the main reason for the giving of the Spirit. Do not boast in the number of signs and wonders performed, but in the fact that we know God and our names are written in the book of Life. Amen.

Knowing God By The Spirit

View more presentations from leeyiksheng.

My take short take on reading Paul

2010-01-28T01:09:00.000+08:00

Listening to one of Delirious' worship concert album, I could not help but to notice how the lead singer made a theological mistake in reading Paul. And this mistake is related to the current tension between the Reformed view of Paul and the New Perspective. The lead singer thought that Jesus came to set us free from the shackles of the law of Moses. He gave the impression as if the law of God in the Old Testament was bad.

But, you would not find this kind of view while reading the New Testament. The Lord Jesus Christ and Paul affirmed the goodness of the law given by God through Moses. Our Lord came to fulfill it and Paul reassured us in Romans that the law is good, inline with the covenant made with Abraham.

So, how did the lead singer get this view that the law of God was something evil which we should be freed from through Christ Jesus? I believe it came from the Reformed tradition. In battling the corrupted papal practices of his time, Luther has overdone his case in making an enemy out of the law which was incongruent with Paul's understanding of the law.

For Paul, he was arguing the case that since the coming of the Lord, justification or God's declaration that we are now the righteous people of God was not accomplished by the observance of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. He was arguing against those who tried to make Gentile believers to become like the Jews, by keeping the works of the law in order to be declared as the righteous and chosen people of God.

In no way was Paul saying that the law was evil bonds that Christ died to set us free from. The wrong was a misrepresentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentile believers by forcing them to become like Jews in order to be God's people. Paul was arguing that the sign of being God's people was the giving of the Holy Spirit by God which guaranteed the Gentiles' status as His righteous children. And he reminded them that this was obtained through faith in Jesus Christ.

To me, this is the argument of the New Perspective against the Reformed traditions of Paul's theology. And indeed, judging from the response of the crowd in th worship concert, the NPP camp does have a warranted case because the misinterpretation of Paul's view on the law is so widely disseminated and accepted by the majority of believers that to a point, it has become detrimental to our faith unless something is done about it.

Inherent weaknesses of Charismatic movement

2010-01-18T02:27:00.002+08:00

I write this not because I want to denounce the movement entirely, only the parts that I deem as detrimental to the faith of believers. I still consider myself as being in the movement and the movement contains a lot of potential, but could not fulfill its God-given destiny due to some who have hijacked the movement and turned it into something far from what God has intended it to be.

Here is the list of weaknesses which I have observed and personally experienced.

Dictatorial leaders justifying their actions on the self-proclaimed grounds that they alone could hear clearly enough from God.
Lack of biblical knowledge amongst members of the movement, allowing themselves to be led solely by the interpretations of their leaders.
Involvement in mega building projects and project such success as a sign and symbol of God's approval.
Mishandling of public funds obtained from members and outsiders which are usually meant for the mega building projects.
Dictatorial leaders being surrounded by groups of 'yes-men' who sincerely think that their leaders are hearing from God and to disobey them is to disobey God himself.
Equating material success as a sign of God's approval.
Equating spiritual conquest and signs and wonders as the sole sign of God's approval or working in the lives of believers.
A perception of exclusivity in the form of spiritual vision where members of charismatic churches are told that they are chosen specially by God and they on the verge of experiencing something special from God which outsiders will not be able experience even though they are fellow believers.
An authoritarian church structure from the top to the bottom where members of the lower hierarchy are expected or compelled to obey those who are above them.
The leaders are unrepentant over mistakes that they have made in the past.

I have listed ten. I am sure there are more. But my aim is to ask members of the charismatic movement to look carefully at the points above and be wary when they observe it to be true in describing the churches that they are currently in. However, these weaknesses may be equally applicable in warning us of our pride and wrongs regardless of which denomination we may belong to.

Word of advise from a charismatic theologian

2010-01-15T09:32:00.001+08:00

I have often wondered about the nature of faith spoken about in the New Testament. This is due to the heated debate by theologians on the issue of justification. However, this is not what I want to write about at the moment. Reading Nijay Gupta's interview of Craig Keener (a well-known charismatic and a respected New Testament theologian) on his new Romans commentary, I am attracted to this portion of the interview.

When Jesus talks about a mustard seed of faith (sorry, remember I am still transitioning from my work in Gospels), his point is that it’s not how much faith you have, but in whom your faith is. The faith may be tiny but if it is in a very big God, God is more than big enough to make up for it. The point is not to have some subjective experience of undirected faith, but to put our trust in the One who is ultimately trustworthy.

This immediately reminds me of my own charismatic experience where often you will hear speakers telling you that the promise of blessing is already a given, all you need to do is to HAVE ENOUGH FAITH to claim it. I think this is ultimately damaging because quite often than not, the ordinary believer will not experience the miraculous promise of blessing regardless of how many times he articulates 'have-faith-claim-and-receive-it' formula. The thing about faith is this. Authentic and genuine Christian faith in an intervening and loving God always involve trust and patience in the midst of contradictory status. This means having faith in God (not having ENOUGH faith) despite the apparent non-action by Him and that He would ultimately act in our favour. This is why faith is an enduring faith.

Witherington's Top 10 Christian Books of 2009

2009-12-30T11:38:00.000+08:00

Here is a list of 10 New Testament books recommended by Witherington for 2009. Interesting selection and happy to mention that I have a few of them. Currently, waiting eagerly for the 10th item.

Excerpt from Witherington's blog
"1) N.T. Wright, Justification. Whether you love his work or loath it, Tom certainly articulates a particular, clear point of view, and this volume is unique in the Wright ouevre in being something of an apologia for his own views on justification which have been under attack.

2) BW3, The Indelible Image Vol. One. Setting aside both hubris and false humility, this is an important work, not least because of its comprehensive coverage of all the NT witnesses and Jesus, and because it deals with both theology and ethics. This work is incomplete without the second and final volume in this series which will appear in 2010.

3) J.D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making Vol. 2. Beginning from Christianity, Jimmy Dunn's work reflects a lifetime of vigorous thought, reading, dialogue, and interaction with a wide panoply of NT scholarship. Dunn is attempting to do for our generation what Cadbury, Lake, Foakes Jackson and others did in their Beginnings of Christianity series from over 50 years ago. Few scholars have the scope of knowledge to pull off something like this with success, but Dunn does.

4) Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Though this book did not come out in 2009, it has only just begun to have its full effect, and as Richard himself has said to me-- its probably his most important book. If you haven't read it yet, stop everything and do so. It puts the cat amongst the pigeons when it comes to a variety of issues including the nature of how Christians passed on the sayings of Jesus and the authorship of the Gospels.

5) John Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. Four. Though it appears that the apex of the third quest for the historical Jesus has come and gone, when the dust has settled this series of books on Jesus may well endure as the most important contributions to the discussion.

6) Philip Payne, Man and Woman. One in Christ, As the culture wars rage on in the conservative church about the role of women, a few scholars have spent most of their careers dealing with the detailed historical and exegetical and theological issues. Few have done a better job of dealing with these issues than my old classmate at GCTS, Phil Payne.

7) E.A. Judge, The First Christians in the Roman World, Finally the many many important essays of Edwin Judge on the social history of the NT period are being collected and put into print enmasse. This collection is voluminous, and it was presaged by my old teacher David Scholer's last labor of love editing a much smaller collection of Ed Judge's essays in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century. Both of these volumes are invaluable.

8) Gary Burge et al. The New Testament in Antiquity, Though I have a few bones to pick with some of the judgments in this volume, it is still excellent, and an excellent place to start when trying to assess the NT in its various settings in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. On top of this it has wonderful pictures and illustrations as well.

9) David deSilva-- Seeing Things John's Way. The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. This book is extremely rich and offers a rhetorically sensitive way of reading the Apocalypse. David writes well to boot, and so hopefully this will help us all get a better grasp of John's world view and persuasion.

10) Craig Keener, The Historical Jesus. If Meier's four volumes is too many big books on Jesus, here is just one giant book that does justice to the subject of what we can know and say about the most influential person of all time. Craig's work reflected detailed and at times exhaustive research on a subject and his coverage of important issues can't be beat. "

Third Sermon at KEFC

2009-12-11T21:36:00.003+08:00

A few weeks ago, I was preparing for another message and I had two topics in my mind at that time. I was trying to decide which was more appropriate. Then, pastor Lazarus told us that next year’s theme would be on knowing Jesus. It struck my heart. I felt that God has decided for me on what I should be preaching this Sunday morning. Knowing Jesus.

I actually typed out the structure of the message that Sunday itself. At that time, I gave it a cheeky title. Fast-Food, or Wholesome Meal?

Why? How is fast food related to Jesus? The type of food we eat affects our health. Similarly, our understanding of Jesus affects our spiritual health. If our understanding of Jesus is like fast food, then it will make us happy for a moment, but in long run, it will affect our health. High cholesterol, high blood pressure, and heart diseases are some of the problems. A healthy understanding of Jesus will help nourish our spiritual body. We are what we eat. Likewise, we are what we think.

How do we know Jesus? One of the many ways is by looking at the titles given to him in the bible. Last week, pastor used the title Wonderful Counsellor and used this to explain God’s character. This week, I am going to try to use the title Son of God.

However, the title Son of God is like an already packed meal. It is ready to be eaten. We often use this title to tell others about Jesus. We also accept very quickly that the Son of God means the divine Son in the Holy Trinity of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But, this understanding is actually the result of a slow Spirit-inspired process. To understand it is like cooking a gourmet meal. It requires careful selection of quality ingredient, patience and skills in cooking. If we simply use this title without properly knowing what it means, we are like eating fast-food. We just eat without knowing what it actually contains. This will hurt our spiritual health. We need to understand it like the way we enjoy our gourmet meal. [

So, to cook you a gourmet meal, I am going to use three ingredients, history, bible and the Spirit.

First ingredient, a bit of history on the title, son of god.

Let me again bring you back to ancient times. We travel back as far as ancient Egypt. That is almost about 1500 years or more before Jesus. Egyptian pharaohs were often given the title of sons of god/Re. They were given these titles to show that they descended from their gods. They were considered divine, but not equal to their supreme god by the name of Re.

We travel forward to ancient Israel, during the time of Davidic kings, which is about 1000 to 600 years before Jesus. During this time, the Israelites associated kings from the lineage of David as having a father and son relationship (2 Sam. 7:14, Ps. 2, Ps. 89:27). But they did not think that these kings were divine. They were different from the Egyptians.

We now travel forward further to the global Macedonian empire that Alexander the Great built about 350 years before Jesus. He too claimed that he was the son of Zeus, which meant that he was the son of god according to Greek-Egypt culture. He claimed he was divine.

Then we travel forward to a time nearest to Jesus. We will find the Roman emperor, Augustus, Julius Caesar’s son, calling himself the son of god because Caesar was worshipped as a god. He too claimed divinity and this was the start of the Roman emperor cult. Temples were built in major cities throughout the Roman Empire to worship the emperor as a god. It has similarities even with our own Chinese history.

That was the first ingredient. Now, we add the second ingredient, the gospels.

Remember, by the time of Jesus, the title son of god has already been used by the pharaohs, kings and emperors of several ancient kingdoms and empires. Most claimed to be divine, but only as a smaller god.

The disciples did not from the beginning think that Jesus was the divine Son of God. They were in fact not sure who he really was. Actually, most people during Jewish time were not sure who Jesus really was (Lk. 4:22; Lk. 5:21, etc.). That was why his enemies kept asking who He was.

Even, Mary, who was told by an angel that Jesus would be called Son of God, and John the Baptist who heard God speaking that Jesus was His beloved Son did not fully think that He was divine. As a matter of fact, those who knew that Jesus was the divine Son of God were only beings from the spiritual realm! One of the first two disciples, Andrew, recognized Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, the human Saviour chosen by God to save Israel. The first disciple to have called Jesus as the Son of God was Nathaniel. But he understood Son of God as being the human King of Israel, chosen by God and spoken of by Moses. Not the divine Son of God. In fact, for Andrew and Nathaniel, Son of God and Messiah have the same meaning, the human King chosen by God to save Israel from her enemies.

Because the disciples were confused, halfway through his 3 years of ministry, Jesus brought his disciples to Caesarea Philippi and asked them who they thought He was.

Who do the people think I am? This was the first question. From the answer, we know how the Jewish people understood Jesus. He was considered a prophet of the Old Testament, like Elijah, Jeremiah and other prophets, calling the people to repent. They even believed that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist. In our own time, many people still believe Jesus is no more than a prophet of God or a teacher of good morals. The same understanding continued even after 2000 years.

Who do you think I am? This was the second question Jesus asked. Who do you say I am? Peter's reply is now the most often used answer when our friends ask us the same question. Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour, the Son of the living God. Jesus affirmed Peter's understanding of him. But what did Peter really mean? Did he think that Jesus is the divine Son of God, God the Son, the second in the Trinity who died for our sins? No, he did not. Why? If he did, Peter would not have rebuked Jesus. No one believing Jesus as the divine Son of God would have dared to scold Him as Peter did. Peter deservedly got his rebuke from the Lord.

Peter understood Jesus as the human Messiah who was anointed by God and sent to save the Jewish people from the Romans. That was how Peter understood the meaning of the title, Son of God. He was not wrong because Jesus affirmed him. His understanding was considered much better because Peter knew the Lord as the Messiah whereas the rest of the crowd did not. However, at this point of time at Caesarea Philippi, he did not know Jesus as the divine Son of God.

What changed his understanding of the Lord?

It was the resurrection. All the disciples and Paul understood Jesus as the Son of God because of His resurrection. All the disciples believed when they saw the resurrected Lord. Saul became Paul, when he saw the glory of the resurrected Lord on the way to Damascus.

The most important point of knowing Jesus as the divine Son of God is to know the resurrected Lord. The disciples and, especially, Paul came to know Jesus as the divine Son of God because Jesus’ resurrection fulfilled all that was spoken of his suffering, death and resurrection in the scriptures of the Old Testament. Initially, the disciples were uncertain of who Jesus was until Peter’s confession. From that point, they knew Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. But when Jesus was resurrected, the finally knew Him as the divine Son of God.

Now, to end, the final ingredient will be added. The Holy Spirit.

To know Jesus as the divine Son of God, we need to know the resurrected Lord. To know the resurrected Jesus, we need not only the word of God, but also the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand. The last ingredient is an application, a response from us. Because knowing the resurrected Lord is a live changing experience, it is not just an intellectual exercise. Like the two disciples travelling to Emmaus, we need to experience the Lord opening the Scriptures to us and feel the passion burning in our hearts to be witnesses of His resurrection. Prayerfully, ask God to grant us by the Spirit the understanding to know the resurrected Lord through the reading of the scriptures and to experience Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in our lives.

Let us pray.

Knowing Jesus - a beginning

View more presentations from leeyiksheng.

Second Sermon at KEFC

2009-11-30T02:15:00.004+08:00

Acts of the Apostles is an exciting book. It is full of action and drama. It reads like a story from a fantasy movie. In fact, the beginning of Acts might have looked and sounded like this. [show movie clip] Exciting isn't it.

Acts is full of signs and wonders. [examples] It is similar to the gospels. In fact, the book of Acts is actually Luke Chapter 2. It was written for the same person and by the same author.

Acts records what the apostles did after Jesus' ascension. Some have said Acts should be titled Acts of the Holy Spirit because of the miracles. Indeed, the story of Pentecost and the power of the Holy Spirit are most often preached when there are sermons on Acts.

Sometimes, we wish we are as faithful and powerful as the apostles. Able to heal the sick, cast out demons and preach the gospel powerfully where thousands are saved. But, we are also encouraged by their sacrifices and weaknesses. It is encouraging to read how God chooses to work through their limitations. It is indeed exciting times.

What is the source their strength and power? Of course, it is the Spirit, some of us will say. It is so obvious with the signs and wonders. But is it really just the Holy Spirit alone? Or is there something else? Any answers? [prayer, fellowship, fasting, faith, obedience, etc.]

Let's take a closer look at the lives of the apostles and the Scriptures. Let's rewind the story 50 days back. The apostles were scared and in denial after Jesus' death. They were scattered. Not knowing what to do. They did not understand why there was an empty tomb. They did not have faith when they heard stories about Jesus' resurrection. Jesus scolded them for their unbelief. This was 50 days ago. What changed the apostles?

The resurrected Lord, obviously! Pentecost and the power of the Holy Spirit, of course! But is there another element. Let's take a look at what Peter did after Jesus' ascension. Remember, Peter was a total wreck when Jesus died. Now, a different Peter stood up to take a leadership role. Peter, based on the scriptures, reassigned another disciple to take the place of Judas. Suddenly he has the wisdom and vision of a CEO! What changed him?

Peter on the day of Pentecost, again based on scriptures, preached about the meaning of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to the devout Jews gathered from all over the world. From a cowardly person who denied Jesus not so long ago, he dared now to say that he was a witness of Jesus’ resurrection even though he knew he could end up like his Lord. The sermon he preached was so, in modern sense, doctrinal. Yet, thousands believed and were saved. How did Peter get his understanding and his courage?

At the temple compound, Peter and John perform a miracle and again Peter stood up courageously to tell the crowd what was happening. Again, Peter’s speech to the people was so ‘theological’. And even when threaten by the religious authorities, they still continued to witness for Jesus’ resurrection. They continued even when they were suffered punishment and were thrown into the prison. What power transformed them in mere 50 days!

There is a Chinese saying, “Kingdoms can rise and fall easily, but the character of a man can never be changed.”

There are some clues to be found in Acts that hint to the apostles’ change of character. I have already shown you some of them. It’s found in the speeches of Peter quoted earlier. How could Peter preach such ‘doctrinal’ sermons when he was a mere fisherman? How could his understanding of the Scriptures changed in 50 days for him to preach so convincingly? How could a scared fisherman be teaching daily to the masses and influence them greatly? The answer to these questions is also found in the book of Acts.

The enemies of the apostles spotted the reason for their ability to teach and preach. They had been with Jesus. The presence of our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ changed the apostles from being cowardly men to heroes of the faith. In fact, this is the strongest evidence for the resurrection of our Lord, but I will leave that to another sermon.

But what did Jesus do after the resurrection to enable the apostles to teach and preach so powerfully? Before Jesus’ death and resurrection, Peter’s understanding of God’s purpose was so poor that he tried to stop the Lord from going to the cross. Jesus rebuked him sternly. What changed that?

The answer again is found in the book of Acts. In fact, in the first few verses which are normally not given much attention to. Jesus taught them about the kingdom of God. He changed their understanding of the kingdom and gave them a true sense of God' plan and purpose. In other words, he taught them the Scriptures. He taught them doctrines. He gave them theology. Here is another verse from Luke that confirms this.

Jesus’ opening of their minds to understand the Scriptures is the powerful answer to the question “What changed the apostles?” Without such understanding, the apostles would not be able to teach and preached as they did. Peter would not understand the event of the Pentecost. The thousands would not be saved. Without understanding of the Scriptures, the apostles would not be able to teach the new disciples. Without the proper preaching of the Scriptures, God would not have confirmed with signs and wonders.

Without the new disciples being taught, we would not have Stephen’s great sermon to his enemies. Without Stephen’s witness, Paul would not have converted. Without Paul, the gospel would not be preached to the Gentiles. And if the Gentiles did not receive the gospel, then we would not have our salvation today. We would not have the New Testament if the Lord Jesus Christ did not teach the Scriptures to the apostles. Everything and every event are linked. And it is linked to the Jesus’ opening of the apostles’ minds to the Scriptures.

What is the conclusion?

Often, we turn away from a proper study of the Bible. Often, we are considered doctrines as impractical, too theoretical, not applicable, or worse still a waste of time. But this is not how Paul tells Timothy. This is not the case when Jesus’ open the apostles’ minds to the Scriptures. If we want to be changed, if we want to be effective for the Lord, we do not just need the power of the Holy Spirit, we must first be trained in the understanding of the Scriptures. So that when God releases His power, we will be able to understand it and preach about it effectively to bring many people to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I urge you brothers and sisters. Give ourselves to the study of the Scriptures while we still can before this privilege is taken away from us. More importantly, if we want to see true outpouring of God’s Spirit and revival, prepare ourselves with the understanding of the Scriptures so that we can contain the power of the Spirit and be used mightily by our Lord.

Thank you.

Source Of Power 15 Nov 2009

View more presentations from leeyiksheng.

Pros and Cons of Kairos' Forum on The Real Jesus Christ of History

2009-11-21T23:40:00.000+08:00

Here is a list of pros and cons after attending yesterday's night seminar at Dream Center, DUMC.

Pros

attendees are given the awareness on the study of historical Jesus
attendees are given the awareness that media companies are producing documentaries on historical Jesus
attendees are alerted on the influence of media and their preferred positions in their popular presentations of the real Jesus Christ
the panel is willing to receive corrections from the floor
attendance and participation from open-minded Muslims

Cons

attendees are not given an ample introduction on the study of historical Jesus
as a result, many in the audience lose concentration and their understanding on the whole issue may be questionable
inaccurate information on the three quests of historical Jesus
as a result, the third quest which actually grounds Jesus in the Jewish context is associated with Jesus Seminar or scholars who are more inclined towards the gnostic gospels
ineffective use of technology hampers the visual presentation of loaded information, making it difficult for the audience to stay concentrated and follow the oral/aural presentation
over generalization of documentaries into a single category i.e. they are positioned to favour the gnostic gospels and multiple flavours of early christianities
attendees are not given the real image of who the historical Jesus is
attendees are simply reaffirmed to accept the Jesus of faith as presented in the canonical gospels
they are not given a solid picture of the historical Jesus as presented in the canonical gospels
they are not informed of the reasons why the Jesus of the canonical gospels is considered historically accurate
in the end, there is a feeling of contentment (false assumed in my opinion) in the air that our Jesus of faith is true historically and all the media presentations of our Lord are mere fabrications

As one of the panelists said, this may be a very subjective interpretation of the event yesterday, but I think I have given an accurate 'eyewitness' account of what transpired. It is good foresight that Kairos has arranged for a follow-up seminar on the same topic and I hope many of attendees will register to participate for better understanding of the whole matter. I just hope that this will not cause more believers to disengage from the challenges from the media and deem all documentaries as mere fabrications without solid reasons.

Musings on interpretation

2009-10-24T16:30:00.002+08:00

It is very interesting to note that we could deduce and induce how Jesus' audience understood his announcement, or gospel, that the kingdom of God is about to come. Like what scholars have mentioned, they must have understood this announcement as referring to the coming of their King, the Messiah, to establish God's rule over Israel and more importantly for them, over the Gentiles. That is why they naturally, be it his followers, skeptics or enemies, asked whether Jesus was the Messiah. And indeed he was, although he always veiled his identity until the final moments. This could also indicate that he knew all along his purpose, or the Father's way, was to die on the cross. He did not want to reveal his identity fully in order to deny his audience from mistakenly forcing him to become a political king, and to a revolt that would undoubtedly lead to disaster as how it played out in Jewish history.

Justification of the nations by works?

2009-09-27T15:54:00.001+08:00

For those, in the name of the reformation tradition, who are overly eager, but yet uninformed, to deride and dismiss scholars who are genuinely looking into the issue of justification biblically would do well to read R.T. France's commentary on Matthew concerning the final judgement reflected in the separation of the sheep and goats by the Lord Jesus (preview below). It bears a striking resemblance to what Paul wrote in Romans 2:6-11 and what John recorded in Revelations 20:11-15.

Wright and Dunn

2009-09-25T00:02:00.000+08:00

Thanks to Michael Bird, I am made aware of this video of Wright and Dunn.

An extremely short and initial review of Karen Armstrong's Case for God

2009-09-22T12:18:00.003+08:00

Reading a portion of Karen Armstrong's new book, though rightly so she rejected the narrow fundamentalistic world view of Dawkins, I could not help, but to think that the God that she says the Western society is increasingly rejecting is a nothing more than mistaken perception of the God in the Jewish and Christian faith. No surprise in the end, the conclusion becomes a bit gnostic. ;-)

NPP, NRSV and ESV

2009-09-12T09:26:00.001+08:00

Listening to Ezra Kok teaching on Romans yesterday was refreshing. He was able to make clear the basic tenets of NPP, especially those by Dunn.

What struck me during the teaching however was the level of compatibility with NPP exhibited by both NRSV and ESV, namely Romans 1:16-17.

Ezra was expounding on the sequence of words that would produce significant theological differences in terms of interpretation and meaning. He was explaining about covenantal nomism in layman terms and I found that at this particular point, NRSV seems to reflect this clearer than ESV. The already saved and righteous must continue to live by faith as a response to God's grace.

It makes me see clearly for the first time that different translations of the bible have their own nuances nd perhaps in this case, theological leanings. But, I am happy that there are many versions available.

Purpose of Romans

2009-09-10T20:51:00.000+08:00

Here are some possibilities on why Paul wrote the letter to the Romans.

Some Jews were questioning the legitimacy of the Gentile believers and this caused some of these Gentile believers to become discouraged or shaken due to the questioning
Paul wanted to encouraged the Gentile believers
To explain why Paul himself thought that the Gentile believers were accepted by God
Having given the surety, Paul warned the Gentile believers from becoming proud and never to reject their Jewish brethren
To bring together the larger group of Gentile believers with the smaller number of Jewish Christians in Rome , showcasing the example of being children of God to the world
To ask for the support of Roman believers for his potential ministry in Spain

For me, I think two of the key verses in understanding the purpose of the letter are the following:

"11 For v I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged w by each other's faith, both yours and mine."

What is it with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and N.T. Wright?

2009-09-06T08:22:00.000+08:00

SBTS Panel Confronts Wright's View on Justification

Sad continuation to the earlier panel discussion moderated by Denny. It borders to character assassination. I was just reading Fee’s Paul, the Spirit, and the people of God‎ yesterday and he said almost the same thing as Wright did concerning the work of the Spirit and future justification more than 10 years ago! But, I do not see the panellists going all out to denounce him as someone leading the flock astray. Sad.

Speculation on the lack of resurrection details in the gospels

2009-09-05T21:25:00.000+08:00

I was drinking coffee at IKEA when I reflected on the question of why the gospel writers wrote so little of the resurrection compared to the bulk of materials on his birth and ministry. Does it mean that the resurrection details were less important in the minds of the gospel writers? This is definitely not so because the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian faith.

I have heard N. T. Wright talking about this before in his audio recordings, but I did not really pay much attention to it to remember clearly what his reason was. I have my own speculation to offer. Could it be that more was written about Jesus' ministry because most believers in the same generation of the apostles have already taken the resurrection as something 'given' or a 'fact' due to their experience in the Spirit. Did they experience God so real in the Spirit that they equated this experience to the genuineness of Jesus' resurrection because this experience that they were having was only made possible through the Easter event?

What the believers of that time did not know, experience or eyewitness personally was seeing and hearing Jesus during his ministry or the events leading to his birth. Thus, the gospel writers were actually spending more time and space to record down the details of Jesus' birth and ministry for the sake of the believers. This, however, is definitely a personal speculation. Just a thought to pen down for future reflection and consideration,

First Sermon at KEFC

2009-08-27T19:10:00.001+08:00

This is my first attempt in writing a sermon and delivering it at Kepong Evangelical Free Church.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem of Evil and the Solution of God

Introduction – Problem of evil

[SLIDE 1]

The theme for the last two months has focused on healing the nation. This theme implies at least 2 things, that there is a problem and that there is a solution. However, we often leave out a crucial part. We need to first understand what the problem is. A doctor needs to diagnose the nature of an illness first before prescribing any medication. We need to understand the problem first before any healing could occur. Wrong diagnosis often leads to wrong medication and this sometimes has serious consequences. What is this problem that we are talking about? It is the problem of evil.

Worldviews on evil

[SLIDE 2]

In the past, our Asian society frequently associates evil with the fear of the supernatural. We consider the supernatural unknown as a prime source of evil. Ghost stories or stories about how the supernatural affects us preoccupy our casual talk in the office and at home. Crime, sickness and natural disaster are explained with reference to supernatural beings or forces. However, exposure to information has given birth to a more modern and Westernized society who sees evil as a form of violation or abuse of human rights and freedom.

Worldview 1 - We are good, they are evil

[SLIDE 3]

As Christians, how do we response? How do we explain to our non-Christian friends that God is good when there is so much evil happening around us? The world also has its way of dealing with evil. Their solutions are based on the worldview that they hold. One solution is to say that we are good and the other side is evil. This is the overly simplistic view. A classic example is Bush's war on the evil of terrorism. We are right and they are evil. Send the military force, overthrow the evil government and everything will be fine.

[SLIDE 4]

Does it work that way? World history has a lot of examples of such overly simplistic failures. During the Crusades, the pope denounced the Muslims as evil and roused the masses of all types, including hardcore criminals, to a religious frenzy to defeat the Muslims and free Jerusalem and the holy land from the infidels. The pope preached that conquering Jerusalem will usher in the second coming of the Lord. When they finally conquered Jerusalem, they did the worst crime ever in the name of Christ and God. They killed everyone in the city, Muslims, Jews and other Christian sects alike. The basic worldview was that we are good and they are evil. Until now, the Muslims and non-believers still judge Christianity based on the atrocities committed 1000 years ago.

Worldview 2 – There is no evil

[SLIDE 5]

Another worldview is to deny the existence of evil. This is reflected in popular psychology. There is no right or wrong. It is merely a struggle of human desires and needs. Sigmund Freud says it is not about good or evil, but of controlling desires and everyone has it.

Worldview 3 – Be separated

[SLIDE 6]

Yet another view is to live apart or separated from the contamination of world. So, monks live in monasteries or temples, away from the influences of the world in pursue of inner spiritual peace and enlightenment.

Worldview 4 – Evil is all powerful

[SLIDE 7]

Lastly, there are those who hold a post modernistic view that evil is rampant and there is nothing you can do about it. You can be cynical about it, but you cannot do anything to change it.

Evil in the first century – Roman Empire

[SLIDE 8]

We now come to the question of how Christians deal with evil? Such an answer is obviously found in Jesus; how Jesus dealt with the evil of his time. Let us now travel back in time to the first century AD. What or who was considered evil to the Jews at this time? One definite answer is the Roman Empire.

[SLIDE 9]

To the Jews of the first century, the Roman Empire was regarded as the symbol of evil. The Romans were not only considered as a political enemy, but also as a manifestation of evil in the spiritual sense. That is why the Roman Empire was called Babylon (Rev. 14:8) in the book of Revelations. The Roman emperor ruled with fear and might. Any rebellion was swiftly crushed with the might of the Roman army. All rebellious leaders or revolutionaries were crucified at the cross for public display, a grim reminder for those who dared to challenge the Roman Empire. The gospel introduced by the Roman Empire was peace and safety if you submitted to their rule and paid your taxes. The Roman Empire treated citizens and those whom they ruled over differently. The Jews and other subjugated nations were treated differently; you might call it discrimination in modern terms.

Three solutions to evil

[SLIDE 10]

In such a political and social environment, how did the Jews respond? For the Jews, they were, most of them, waiting for God to send them the Messiah, the Anointed King and Saviour from the lineage of David to fight and defeat the Romans, and to deliver them from their rule. This was how they expected God to deal with the evil of their times. In addition, we could also observe three distinctive patterns in solving this problem from three different groups within the Jewish community.

Solution 1 – Collusion

[SLIDE 11]

Herod the Great, and the Jewish religious council and authority chose the path of collusion by working with the Roman Empire represented by Pontius Pilate. That was why in the end, they cried out that they have no other king except Caesar. Herod the Great tried to please both the Romans and Jews by building Caesarea in honour and worship of Caesar and the Second Temple, to establish their case as the rightful political ruler of the Jews. In this political arrangement, the evil of the Roman Empire was deemed necessary for them to remain in power as 'friends of Caesar' (John 19:12). Jesus was considered a threat to this fine balance of power.

Solution 1 – Revolution

[SLIDE 12]

Second group are the Sicarii, the revolutionaries who believed that the only solution was a revolt to overthrow the empire completely. Some of them obviously thought that Jesus would lead them to such a battle and triumph. However, Jesus definitely disappointed them by choosing the cross and loving the enemy. Therefore, in the end, in the year 66AD to 70AD, they took matters into their own hands and started the first Jewish War. They were victorious initially and even formed a government to rule. However, internal strife, hatred and violence coupled with the superiority of the Roman army crushed the diminishing Jewish revolutionaries. The last moments of the battle was horrific, even the priests took up arms and defended to the last breath within the Temple compounds itself. The devastating results, which fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy of judgement for a rebellious city that murdered the prophets, were the Temple was torn down and burned, Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation of Israel was scattered and exist no more until 1948. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matt. 26:52).

Solution 3 - Separation

[SLIDE 13]

The third solution was to draw away totally from the influences of a sinful world by living an ascetic life. This was practiced by a breakaway Jewish sect called the Essenes who lived near Qumran, along the Dead Sea. Some have attributed them to be responsible for the survival of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The way they fought against the evil Roman Empire and the apostate religious leaders of the Jewish community was to isolate themselves from their influence to live in a commune with strict rules for holiness, all the while waiting for the appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness to deliver God’s judgement upon their enemies. To them, only those who followed their strict communal rules would be saved.

What is the Christian response?

[SLIDE 14]

We have seen three solutions offered by three different Jewish groups during Jesus’ time. Are these solutions appropriate and right for our times? Do we collude and work with evil as means of retaining our power and wealth, resulting in corruption and allegiance to evil itself? Do we take up arms to destroy evil like George Bush’s war on terrorism, aiming to destroy evil by destroying those whom the American government deemed as evil with smart bombs and military might? Or, do we retreat from the world and isolate ourselves to live a monastic life away from the contaminating influences of a secular world? Do we keep the world outside the four walls of our church? What would Jesus do? Or, more precisely, what did Jesus do to evil and how did the Lord overcome it?

No collusion

[SLIDE 15]

Firstly, Jesus did not choose any of the solutions offered by the three groups. Instead of colluding and yielding to the temptation of Satan (Luke 4:1-13), instead of saving his life and turning away from the cross, the Lord chose to forgo earthly rewards and power that evil would offer. The Lord chose to lose his life instead of preserving it. Going against all normal expectations to yield in exchange for power and safety, the Lord Jesus chose to fight evil by resisting its temptation and overcoming its sting of death, facing it head on as he persistently turned his eyes towards Jerusalem and eventually to the cross (Mark 10:33-34).

No revolution

[SLIDE 16]

But, he did not do so in the manner of the revolutionaries which was the second solution. He did not take up arms and lead his followers and the masses who followed him to a war of imminent doom as this ragtag army would never be able to triumph against the professional crack troopers of the Roman army (John 6:15). He denied the chance for Peter to draw his sword when Judas brought the temple soldiers to arrest him (John 18:11). He denied the chance for his disciples to call down judgement on those who rejected and reviled them (Luke 9:54). He told Peter when he was about to be arrested that he could bring down his heavenly angelic army to battle for him, but chose not to do so (Matt. 26:53). The Lord's way was not the way of war and death, but that of the cross, which brought judgement and forgiveness.

No isolation

[SLIDE 17]

Thirdly, the Lord did not isolate himself nor withdrew from the world like Buddha did before him. He did not withdraw from the society to preserve ceremonial cleanliness and holiness. He accepted the discriminated and the prejudiced members of the society. The whores, the lepers, the sick, the lame, the poor, the sinful, the unrighteous, the Samaritans (half-bloods) and the children came to him and were accepted. These and the poor were those who would inherit the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:3).

Jesus, God’s solution to evil

[SLIDE 18]

We could see from these examples, the Lord's way of dealing with evil was totally different from the solutions of his contemporaries. He did not think that evil was just a simple physical problem which could be destroyed by daggers or smart bombs (2 Cor. 10:3). He did not think that evil was not defeat-able that he has to accept it and collude with it like King Herod, Jewish religious rulers or modern day politicians until the phrase 'a necessary evil' becomes an accepted norm of our lives. He did not think that living apart from the world, within the confines and comfortable environment of the church community as the way God would use to solve the problem of evil. God's solution was judgement and forgiveness on the cross through the death of Jesus Christ. God did not brush aside evil with cheap grace without judgement and justification. He judged and this resulted in our Lord's death (Rom. 8:3). But, God also forgave as a result of Christ's faithfulness and death (Rom. 5:8).

[SLIDE 19]

Throughout church history, the way of suffering, expecting God's final vindication, loving the enemies and forgiveness have been the solution of God in overcoming evil (Luke 6:27; 35). It is the way of the cross. From Stephen's forgiveness (Acts 7:60), we witnessed the salvation of the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, from whom the gospel was sowed and spread throughout the Roman Empire. We are indirectly or directly indebted not to Paul alone, but to Stephen and ultimately to Jesus Christ, from whom we have redemption. If Stephen chose to fight, or to collude or to withdraw, we might not have Paul (Acts 7:58) and the advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ would have definitely been stunted. This is merely one example.

I encourage you to explore church history to understand how early first century Christians who were mostly formed by members from the lower social strata of the society e.g. slaves, servants overcame the Roman Empire by the word of their testimonies, by being faithful to the covenant of the Lord and by choosing the way of the cross, denying their own lives and counting it all joy to suffer and die for the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:11).

The Holy Spirit – God’s Empowerment

[SLIDE 20]

However, God did not leave us as orphans fending off the wolves on our own. He gave us his Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, the first century Christians and us alike would or will not be able to choose the solution of God to overcome evil unless they or we were empowered by the Spirit (Rom. 15:18-19). We cannot heal the sick, cast out demons, accept the sinful, and forgive our persecutors or even murderers without the Holy Spirit. The solution of God, the way of the cross is never merely a human endeavour. It is always God who starts and finishes his good work in us and through us by the empowerment of his Spirit (Php. 1:6; 2:13). Therefore, brothers and sisters, remember God's way of dealing with evil and his empowerment to do so that we may truly be his instruments in our generation to become God's solution to overcome evil. Thank you.

References

· N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God

· N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus

Google Books

2009-08-27T09:34:00.001+08:00

Google has made available some books which can be read entirely online. Some are also downloadable such as the one below by Edward Gibbons.

Opinion survey on the timing of rapture

2009-07-09T13:25:00.002+08:00

<p>Loading...</p>

Martin Hengel on Christ Files DVD

2009-07-09T00:47:00.002+08:00

Professor Hengel interviewed by John Dickson from CPX on Vimeo.

Evolution of the Universe?

2009-07-04T17:18:00.000+08:00

Watching BBC's Did Darwin Kill God?, it is very difficult to subscribe to Dennett's view that evolution theory alone can explain everything about the universe. Just could not see how evolution explains the beginning of the universe and all the entailing forces working within it through the construct of 'natural selection'. I think evolution applies well to nature and biological life, but it may not be so effective in terms of astrophysics. Evolution needs some form of boundary if it is to avoid the generation of strange, 'evident-less' and equally faith-like concepts like meme.

Reformed or exclusiveness based on traditions?

2009-06-26T19:47:00.000+08:00

I was introduced to R. Scott Clark's rebuke of Piper for his views on Wright and Wilson by Michael F. Bird. Even though I did not read it thoroughly, but in my mind, a few objections have already formed.

callous associations of Wright to that of 'another gospel' without even quoting his writings to show as evidence for such conclusions
frequent quotes of traditions in interpreting the bible as if these traditions supersede the careful exegesis of the bible itself
an almost exclusive view in treating Reformed traditions as highly orthodox or the bearers of the true gospel and Christian faith

It saddens me when one group of brethren decide to paint themselves as the only 'right' camp at the expense of another without giving a careful thought of what the other party has done or is trying to say.

Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen!

2009-06-25T04:03:00.000+08:00

What a great movie! Watching and seeing it is believing. I hope this will turn out like it did for LOTR, that the Academy will finally decide to look past and beyond the sci-fi genre and award the two, or perhaps, hopefully, a third to cap it all. (Wonder if ever an AA is awarded to a sci-fi movie?)

The two T-movies really deserve it. I have never, repeat never, heard an audience clapping and cheering at the end of a movie. A football match definitely, but never a movie. It has all the elements that a great movie should have. Here is my list.

great story (the heartbeat of the movie and in this case, it's about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, when the foes are many and heroes are few)
great character development, and the movie has a few of them, characters that we could relate to (ordinary folks, and in some cases, not-so ordinary folks, making courageous and self-sacrificial decisions that most of us in our inner beings always aspire to achieve, another sign of God's image in man)
good human and non-human actors and actresses (ok,I admit, some were less convincing)
right amount of humour, interspersed in between really tense moments (this brought the house down, literally)
great graphics/visuals/cinematography (and I mean great, where else would you see a Voltron-like combo-Decepticon climbing up the pyramids of Giza to ..... spoilers ended)
great soundtracks (Linkin Park of course)
and last but not least, the great voice of Optimus Prime!

I am sure there are others. Might watch it a second time and hope Michael Bay will produce another next year. This will definitely replace Dark Knight as the candidate for my first Blue-Ray disc. Have fun watching and never give up, just believe!

Home by Yann

2009-06-21T19:34:00.000+08:00

Scot McKnight - On Wright's book on Justification (Updated 15 June 2009)

2009-06-19T17:47:00.000+08:00

Here is a compilation of the 20 parts of Scot McKnight's review of N.T. Wright's new book on Justification.

Would love to hear your comments on this

Christ Files DVD by John Dickson

2009-06-17T02:14:00.000+08:00

Guys,

Just thought of sharing a resource which I think is quite interesting and useful for anyone who is interested in the historical study of Jesus, but has no time or inclination to read the tons of books written on the subject.

Actually, I am quite surprised that it has not caught the attention (at least in my network of information circulation) of the Christian blogosphere enough for it to be suggested as an invaluable resource in addition to the printed materials.

I am speaking of the Christ Files DVD which is based on the book of the same title written by John Dickson. The DVD is a beautifully filmed (some of the background scenes across the globe are quite stunning due to the high quality of the production which is almost equivalent to HD) documentary with a clear logical path that traces the sources (including Gnostic, Jewish and Greco-Roman materials) of our knowledge of Jesus starting from the period furthest away from the Lord's lifetime to the sources nearest to the time of his death and resurrection. Very clearly presented by the witty author with a sound logical argument and neat visual timeline. Interspersed in between are short interviews (the second disc contains 6 hours of the full interviews) of various renown scholars in the field. I took the liberty to paste the list below.

Professor Richard Bauckham of St Andrew’s University, Scotland on the Gospels and Eyewitness Testimony
Professor Marcus Bockmuehl of St Andrew’s University, Scotland on Gnosticism and the Gnostic Gospels
Professor James Charlesworth of Princeton University, USA on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus
Professor James Dunn of Durham University, England on how ancient societies preserved traditions aurally
Professor Sean Freyne of Trinity College, Dublin on the Archaeology of Galilee (filmed on location in Israel)
Professor Martin Hengel of the University of Tubingen, Germany on the historical value of the Gospels
Professor Alanna Nobbs of Macquarie University, Australia on the Greco-Roman sources for studying Jesus
Dr. Adolfo Roitman of Shrine of the Book, Israel on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Professor Peter Stuhlmacher of University of Tubingen, Germany on the Apostle Paul and the value of his letters for the study of the historical Jesus
Professor Christopher Tuckett of Oxford University, England on the source behind the Gospels, such as ‘Q’
Right Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, England on the importance of the Old Testament for understanding the historical Jesus

The effective segmentization of the DVD menu allows viewers to select according to topics, subtopics, or interviews. This is particularly useful if you want to zoom in on a certain topic for discussion with friends or for further study in a cell group. There is even a shorten version of the documentary which was meant for airing on TV. It has a nice contemporary feel in the way the video shots are taken. Compared to Strobel's DVDs, this is much better.

I ordered this DVD through Canaanland about half a year ago. The price is RM59.90 nett. They have several copies. Perhaps less than 15. The book is also available at the price of RM32.50 before discount. Do check out the DVD's website if you are interested to view excepts of the documentary or interviews (Bauckham and Wright really speak well compared to Hengel and Dunn).

A lengthy promotion, but do not get me wrong. I have no share of profit from Canaanland or Dickson.

Galatians 5:5-6 Perfect Solution and Summary?

2009-06-13T18:26:00.003+08:00

5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

When I read this verse, I thought this is a perfect solution and summary to the issues and controversies surrounding the debate raised by opponents and proponents of NPP. It shows that:

", by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness." - the righteousness of God is not exchanged with our sins when we believe. There is no need for faith or to hope for it when it is already given.
"For through the Spirit," - the ability to continue in the hope of being declared righteous by God in the end is enabled by the Spirit, not something that we could work out on our own. Thus, the important role of the Spirit in the working out of our salvation i.e. the guarantor of our salvation.
"but only faith working through love" - real faith is inevitably acted out in the physical world as works of love. It is not merely a mental or emotional state. This harmonizes Paul and James where faith is never separated from actions or works, just like the body is never be separated from the spirit in a living human being.

Craig Keener on his Revelation commentary

2009-05-19T23:43:00.000+08:00

Craig S. Keener on the book of Revelation from Zondervan on Vimeo.

Like the inspiration behind the book.

Craig Blomberg's review of N.T. Wright's Justification

2009-05-16T12:18:00.001+08:00

Here is another good review from Blomberg on Wright.

Douglas Moo on C.S. Lewis

2009-05-16T12:10:00.000+08:00

Mounce on the study of biblical languages

2009-05-16T12:08:00.000+08:00

Enhancing and Networking the Church

2009-05-14T02:24:00.003+08:00

My pastor visited me yesterday and we discussed about how we could use technology, especially Web 2.0, to enhance our current church activities. Here are some of the suggestions (which means none of this is currently being practiced at our local community of faith).

Make PowerPoint presentations of Sunday sermons online through Google Docs or Slideshare
Upload Sunday sermons as podcasts (initially to use Box.net)
Setup a Google Site to deliver these presentations and podcasts
Record guitar lessons with the youth group and broadcast it through YouTube, embedding it at the church's Google Site
Aggregate relevant information for practical and spiritual living through the use of feed subscription
Encourage the congregation to visit the church site and participate by posting comments of the delivered sermon and presentation
Address comments posted during the week on the following Sunday sermon to encourage continuous participation
Setup a physical cyber cafe in the church premise
Conduct Internet or ICT classes for the surrounding community
Encourage the youth group to tell their friends about the activities of the church through the relevant information made available at the church site

Disappointment - "This kind of stuff."

2009-05-09T10:23:00.000+08:00

I was at Evangel bookstore yesterday checking out the Sales that was currently on. A lively group of brothers and sisters in Christ entered the store just a few minutes before closing time. I was about to leave myself. They were a jovial group and they seemed to be looking for a gift for another sister who was attending a biblical course. It was difficult not to overhear their conversation because they were so vocal and had fun laughing at the thought of what they were getting for the sister. All was well except for the fact that one of them made a disturbing statement (at least to my ears it was). Holding a new testament commentary by Frank Thielman, he said, "She would read this kind of stuff." The tone was not that of sarcasm. But the problem was that he viewed the serious study of the bible and doctrines 'too lightly'. It sounded like to him, the reading of books related to theology or any serious form of biblical study was to be considered a strange habit or practice for a believer to do. To him, a normal Christian did not read this 'kind of stuff'.

I wonder whether which would be considered normal, a believer who is serious enough to study more thoroughly the faith and doctrines that he/she has been imparted with or the one who neglects to do so?

N.T. Wright on Justification (YouTube)

2009-05-09T02:58:00.000+08:00

Craig Keener on the Bible

2009-05-08T19:21:00.002+08:00

I have been buying his commentaries recently due to his socio-historical approach. Here is the man in person.

Scot McKnight - New Perspective on Paul

2009-05-05T00:07:00.001+08:00

Scot McKnight has just begun part 1 of his 'as expected' substantial and great reviews on NPP and its usual suspects. Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright (SSDW). Interestingly, he begind on the same note or charge that Wright has made in his new book on Justification. That is critics of the NPP or of Wright specifically, are not hearing what the latter is trying to say. McKnight goes as far as to say, agreeing with Wright on this area, that the NPP proponents are more Protestant than their critics because they are willing to reexamine what the Bible and Paul are actually saying instead of relying on the Augustinian or Reformist traditions.

This is a great piece of writing of which I am expecting more to come shortly. I also do foresee that the critics of NPP, and especially Wright, will aim their salvos on McKnight from now on just as they did for Wright.

Back to 'Beginnings'

2009-05-02T15:33:00.000+08:00

Just a subjective observation. Is it a current trend for Hollywood to go back to the 'beginnings'? Here are some examples.

Star Wars
Batman
X-Men
Star Trek
Harry Porter (the origin of Lord Voldemort and his ties with Harry)
History Channel and National Geographic (origins of the universe, earth and life)

And outside of the theaters or TV series, we have the continuous interest in the remaking or redefining of the beginning of Christianity (still waiting for Dunn's 'Beginning from Jerusalem'). My own journey is also prompted by a rethinking of how the first church was like in the first century.

So, for those who say that they are not interested in history, we may be engaging and indulging in it more than we realize.

Is Peter thinking of Exile at Babylon?

2009-05-02T12:53:00.001+08:00

I was flipping through the introductory pages of Joel Green's commentary on 1 Peter when I came across an interesting passage talking about how Peter must have been equating Rome as the spiritual Babylon, with its authority to rule and sanction a potpourri of religions. An equally interesting idea dawned on me in the form of a question that goes like this. "Was Peter imaging the current situation of the Christians as somewhat similar to that of the Jews when they were exiled to Babylon?"

This is interesting because one would definitely ask the question of should not the Christians be ruling the world if the Messiah has come and established God's kingdom or rule? This was the Jewish expectations in the first century that could have resulted in the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah since he, in their eyes, would have been deemed to have failed in overthrowing Roman rule, which was the vital sign of the establishment of God's kingdom.

More interesting is the question of "Was Peter answering the same question to believers that he was writing too?". Were they, some would obviously have been Jewish believers, asking the same question mentioned above?" And even more exciting is the question of what possible answers or solutions was Peter formulating in his mind in responding to their questions and how this reflected his understanding of God's continuous historical dealing, first with the Jews and then with the body of Christ consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.

Was Peter thinking of God's promise to Jeremiah and the fate of Israel before and after the exile to Babylon? Was Peter equating the current situation under Roman rule with that of the Jews in Babylon? Was Peter trying to tell that the current situation under Roman rule was like the same promise that God has delivered through Jeremiah to the remnants who were captured and exiled to Babylon until the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy to once again restore the Jews to the land of Israel? Was Peter telling the early Christians how to understand God's dealing with them with this Old Testament imagery? That the Christians were the remnant of Jews that God has promised to save and sent to exile until the time of the restoration which was to be understood as the second coming of Christ. Was Peter acting the role of Jeremiah in telling them that they should accept the current Roman rule and prosper, in spiritual sense, in the Roman Empire just as the Jews did at Babylon?

So many questions and I think this is an interesting way to understand the letter. Perhaps this could also explain our situation right now that we should act as the remnant that God would use in our current Babylonian system until the time of restoration. This would be an extremely difficult and exciting time if we are to use the examples of God's dealings with the Babylonian empire during the time of the exile until the ascension of Cyrus as God's chosen king and deliverer for the Jews.

A more objective review of Tom Wright's new book from Denver Seminary

2009-05-01T14:33:00.000+08:00

Just came across this well-balanced review of N.T. Wright's new book on Justification by Denver Seminary. This piece of writing is more edifying compared to the discussion moderated by Burk which I blogged earlier. There is no character vilification here. Just an objective review of the book and Piper's challenge which will allow its readers to take interest in the topic and read the books by both the pastor and the bishop for themselves before making their own conclusions based on informed first-hand reading. Interesting to note how this review differs from the panelists of the above mentioned discussion. The reviewer does not seem to think that Wright's language and characterization in the first chapter concerning his critics as being out of tone nor uncharitable.

Francis Collins

2009-04-30T05:10:00.000+08:00

Just found out about this new website by Collins.

Future of Four

2009-04-27T19:12:00.000+08:00

When I finish writing my thesis, hopefully by June this year, there will be four books in particular that I would like to buy and read, even if I have to buy them through Amazon which is more expensive! ;-)

Here are the four books in no particular sequence.

This book is so attractive because there are so many scholars lined up writing in honour of Richard Hays. I first came across Richard Hays while reading Wright.

This book attracts me with its main theme on justification and Paul, and it sheer volume of almost 1400 pages. An added bonus is the foreword by Wright! ;-)

The last two books I have already made an order for with Canaanland.

Previews are available for three of the books by following the links on the images of the books. Only Douglas Campbell's book is without a preview.

I got to work hard to complete my thesis and save some money in the mean time. Delayed gratification until June. ;-)

Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ

2009-04-26T08:53:00.002+08:00

Here is a soft copy of the book that I found on Scribd.

Lee Strobel - The Case For Christ Lee Strobel - The Case For Christ smiles.garikamukkala

Publish at Scribd or explore others: School Work Humanities Religion-Christianit Christ

Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ DVD-ROM

2009-04-26T01:35:00.005+08:00

I just bought and finished watching the DVD which last for about 80 minutes. Initially, I was really afraid that this was an old video since the book was published more than 1o years ago. A preview and a check on the back cover assuaged my fears. It was produced 2 years ago and the quality of the wide-screen production was good. It was costly (RM79.90), but I thought it would be a good investment for bible study and an unobtrusive way in introducing Christ Jesus to friends in the comfort of our living room.

As a matter of fact, the DVD contains a lot of scholars whom I really like e.g. Craig Evans, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III,Craig Bloomberg, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, etc. Of course, due to its purpose, proponents of an alternative view or views such as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, Jonathan Reed, Elain Pagels and others do not appear in this DVD. This can be contrasted with the Jesus Revealed documentary produced by National Geographic that was aired on Astro during the Easter period. The difference in the scholarly line up is clearly evident.

E. P. Sanders

2009-04-25T20:48:00.000+08:00

For the last few days, I came across a couple of writers giving acknowledgement to Sanders because they had studied under him. Today, when I went to Canaanland to check out their latest shipment of books, I met the owner, Francis, and he graciously brought me up to the storage floor when many still unpacked boxes of books were stacked. He told me that the Eerdmans boxes were still wrapped up. I was duly disappointed because I was looking forward to getting Dunn's Beginnig from Jerusalem while the Easter Sales was still on. Then he showed me some Fortress books lying on the floor. Guess whose book was piled up there. Sander's Paul and Palestinian Judaism. So I told Francis the significance of this book (I think there were only three copies) and why I was buying it. He told me that I could buy it as long as there was a price label. I quickly grabbed a copy with the best condition. ;-)

P.S The price is around RM79.90 after discount. Bauckham's new title on Jesus and the God of Israel is also available, but I did not buy because of the price and I have already owned God Crucified.

Scholarly Writings Are Equally Pastoral - Debunking Common Perceptions

2009-04-25T11:43:00.002+08:00

Many times, I here my fellow brethren telling me that they would not read a thick book containing only words. A 1000-page commentary would be useful to them as a defensive weapon against possible intruders. These books are considered too scholarly and not practical for evangelism or pastoral work. A close friend of mine whose library most probably tops mine, tells me that 'normal' people do not read such books. For a time, I tend to agree with him. After browsing through a couple of Gordon Fee's books in my own library, I begin to see that the common perception that these books are overly academic and thus, not useful for everyday living is unfounded. Fee's books on the works of the Holy Spirit in our lives and his popular commentary on Philippians are both scholarly and applicable for 'every good works'. It is us who have developed the dichotomy and barrier between scholarly writing and practical works. It is not abnormal to read and dwell in scholarly work. Perhaps it is abnormal not to do so.

What is faith? - An Initial Response to Schreiner, Seifrid, Vickers, and Burk Responses' to Wright’s Response to Piper

2009-04-19T17:57:00.001+08:00

Continuing from the previous post, I want to ask the question again concerning the notion of 'justification by faith' which is obviously very important to the panelists. I am going to transcribe and quote specifically from Seifrid and Schreiner to highlight a point that Seifrid has made concerning Wright's concept of justification.

".. it is this faithfulness that will determine our standing in the last day. So it starts becoming the question of "Have I been faithful enough?" which oddly ...... this was precisely of course Luther's question prior to his reformational discovery, "Have I repented enough? Have I, of course it was all by God's grace, but the question was, "Have I got enough of it myself?" (11:10-111:40)

Seifrid here criticizes Wright that his formulation leaves a level of degree in which we need to work out our faithfulness in order to achieve justification. So, to Seifrid, there is always the problem of whether we have achieve enough of faithfulness.

I am actually quite surprised by this criticism because whatever Seifrid has said here also works against his formulation of 'justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone'. Why do I say that? It is because the same criticism can be used to ask the question of "Have I believe in Jesus Christ enough?" Picture this, a new believer confesses that he believes in Jesus Christ and that through him, God has forgiven his sins. Let's assume also that he truly believes it in his heart that this is so, and not merely making some declarative statement. Further on in his life, he turns away from believing in this truth and shows no evidence of faith working in his life. The same question is than asked, "Is his faith earlier on enough for his justification?" "Could he be declared justified based on his earlier stage of faith which he now no longer demonstrates?" There exists the same issue of whether how much, or more accurately, how long must a person hold on to his faith in order to be justified? So, there is still the problem of how much or long a person has to 'believe' before he could be justified.

This is confirmed later on by Schreiner and the panel when they answered the question of what kind of faith that leads to justification. The answer which they agreed on is that of a persevering faith. So, again, there is the question of "Have my faith persevered enough?" "Have I persevered enough?" Or "Have I done enough with my faith?"

Do not get me wrong. I do believe that the faith that justifies us is that of a faith that endures to the end. And of course, the evidence or fruits of faith is works or works of the Spirit in us (like what Wright has said if the panelists have understood him and his new book correctly. I have, of course, not read the book except for the excerpt because the book is still unpublished.)

I am simply making the point that Seifrid's critique of Wright's formulation of justification by faith is equally applicable to his notion of justification by faith and faith alone. That is because faith is never about just making a declarative statement which would forever guarantee our justification now and forever. It is persevering which requires our active involvement in yielding to the Spirit which will inevitably lead to works of faith (as in James) or the fruits of the Spirit (as in Galatians). The problematic question of "Have I been faithful or persevered in faith enough?" will always linger at the doorsteps of our hearts. The seal and the assurance of our faith and redemption is of course the comfort and the fellowship the Holy Spirit (which is I think what Wright is trying to say; I have to read the book when it is available to find this out.)

An Initial Response to Schreiner, Seifrid, Vickers, and Burk Responses' to Wright’s Response to Piper

2009-04-18T19:30:00.008+08:00

This is going to be a short one because I am just trying to use this posting to hold down a thought which I think is important. One of the criticism raised by the panelists is that Wright is promoting some sort of justification by works which are generated by the Holy Spirit. They believe that this will lead to a problematic question of how much of our faithfulness is considered enough to be justified. To them this is similar to Luther's problem. The panelists want nothing more than the concept that we are justified by faith and faith alone. Schreiner qualifies it even more by saying that it is not enough just to say that by faith alone, but to whom this faith is directed to.
It started me thinking about "What is this faith which is so important to the panelist?" In fact, there is a question later on by one in the audience asking about which type of faith that leads to justification. So what is this faith that 'ensures' justification?

When a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, what is he actually believing? What is his faith actually about? Is he believing in what is said about Jesus Christ in the gospels? Is he believing in a set of propositional truths about Jesus Christ? Is he believing that Jesus Christ is real and alive and he needs to react to Him? How does this faith work out? One of the panelists says that this faith is believing the truth that we will be saved in the day of judgement because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. Rightly, Wright has criticized those who holds this view, saying that this is like believing that we will be justified not because we believe in Jesus Christ, but because we believe in the doctrinal truth about justification by faith.
So to the panelists, this is faith that leads to justification and this is against what Wright is saying. The next question is "what happens next?" Can the new believer decide to stop believing in this? And then, can he turn around and believe again after he has lost faith? So how does this work actually? There still exists the problem that the panelists have criticized Wright about, how much of faith is sufficient? When will his faith count? The first time, the second time, the time before he dies on his death bed? What is the nature of this faith? Propositional truths, making declarative statements of these propositions or speech acts? So justification by faith and faith alone as proposed by the panelists is not without its problems too.
On how the moderator and the panelists conducted themselves, I will have to leave it until the next posting. Anyone wanting to listen to the faculty podcast can follow this link.

The Atonement Debate - a very brief comment

2009-04-15T00:21:00.000+08:00

Just bought a copy of The Atonement Debate (I am really in a book-buying frenzy now). This book holds a collection of papers on the issue raised by an earlier book, The Lost Message of Jesus Christ by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. Obviously, the issue is about the atonement wrought about by Christ. While flipping through this book, certain thoughts arose in my mind as I reflected on the question of what it means for Christ to die for sinners. In logical sequence, I thought of these questions and answers:

Why did Christ die for sinners? - to reconcile man to God
Why was man estranged from God? - because of sin
How did Christ death overcome sin? - freeing man from the body of sin, dying in the body to sin with Christ and living in the Spirit

This leads me to ask the question of "where is the notion of Jesus Christ dying to satisfy the anger of a righteous God?" in the scheme of thoughts above. This is an ongoing thought to an ongoing debate. So, I will just leave it here at the moment for future discussions.

Witherington's five part response to 'Jesus Interrupted'

2009-04-14T22:49:00.002+08:00

Here is a four-part response from Witherington on Ehrman's new book.

Perhaps there will be more?

Young Gordon Fee's burden which is also mine

2009-04-11T21:45:00.000+08:00

This is an excuse for me to indulge in a couple of commentaries recently because of the 20% store-wide discount at Canaanland. ;-)

Dealing with Evil on the Cross - a video of Wright's book on Evil and Justice of God (YouTube)

2009-04-10T15:05:00.002+08:00

Today is Friday! TGIF! God's way of dealing and victory over evil.

Excerpts of N.T. Wright's book on Justification

2009-04-10T12:57:00.007+08:00

I downloaded an excerpt from Wright's book on Justification, which is a response to Piper's earlier book that deals and critics the latter's reading of Pauline letters and especially on the issue of justification.

Although, I disagree with Piper, I must agree on the fact that when it comes to Pauline theology, you really need to pay extra attention to what Wright is talking about if you want to understand his position correctly. Even this popular reply to Piper needs time to digest judging by the excerpt which I have downloaded. Nevertheless, I think Wright is more right than Piper is.

My impression on the book of Romans currently and on the issue of justification is something like this.

Paul is addressing a division between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians in Rome.
The division is caused by the argument whether one needs to keep the Jewish law in order to be called God's chosen.
Paul sees that the problem is caused by the lack of understanding towards how one is justified or declared righteous, which is the prerequisite in order to enter into the covenant with God and enjoy its commonwealth.
Paul argues that all have sinned and no one can be justified by merely having the law as part of a tradition or by striving to keep the law in totality which no one can because of the nature of sin in us all.
Paul points to fact that the law actually makes us aware of the nature and the controlling power of sin in our lives that constantly bend us away from doing what is right, even when we know what we are doing is wrong.
Paul explains that ultimately, we are declared righteous because of our belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has done.
Thus, both Jewish and non-Jewish believers are ultimately declared as God's chosen based on their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul anguishes at the fact that some of his Jewish brethren have chosen to reject this choice of faith made available through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the story of who Jesus is.
But he warns the non-Jewish Christians lest they become proud and persecute their non-believing Jews who are originally the people that God has established a covenant with.
Hoping that both the Jewish, and non-Jewish Christians would understand what he is writing about, Paul ends with a list of practical things that they can do in order to live harmoniously as a united community of believers of Christ Jesus.
He also hints to them that they better get their act together because he needs them to continue his mission to Spain and reminds them that other communities of believers elsewhere in the Mediterranean are watching and observing their response.

This is how I view Paul's use of the concept of justification in his letter to the Romans. Thus, in general, justification is about how one is declared righteous, but in the context of Romans, it is a theological solution to clear the misunderstanding of Jewish believers on the status of non-Jewish believers who have the liberty of not keeping the Jewish law and customs because their faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for them to be declared righteous and counted as God's chosen people and enjoy the commonwealth of God's covenant which is the mystery that Paul explains in his letter to the Ephesians. My two cents.

N.T. Wright on Resurrection (YouTube) - No. 2

2009-04-10T12:24:00.001+08:00

N.T. Wright on Resurrection (YouTube) -No. 1

2009-04-10T12:21:00.003+08:00

Was looking for a preview of Wright's DVD on Resurrection but instead I found this.

Reflections on Matthew 27:46

2009-04-09T20:43:00.003+08:00

As I am preparing for tomorrow's ten minutes sharing for the Good Friday service, I found some interesting things which I did not know before. I realized that to Jesus' Jewish enemies, he seemed to have failed in all possible ways to prove himself as their Messiah. Firstly, he was unable to save himself. Secondly, God did not save him which meant to them the ultimate sign that he was not God's Messiah for Israel. And to put the nail on the coffin, he seemed to them to have called upon someone of a lower rank than him. To them, Jesus had called upon Elijah in a desperate attempt to save himself. His enemies might have told these signs of a failed messianic figure to everyone in Jerusalem or beyond in order to prevent them from believing in the Lord.

I was contemplating. How much of this factor was affecting Matthew's writing of this chapter when he borrowed from the Markan source? That at the second level (refer previous post), how much of echoes of Psalm 22 found in this chapter which had been used to interpret the actions of the perpetrators was used to turn the tables against the accusations that Jesus was not the Messiah? Was Matthew purposefully trying to point his audience to the fact that the very actions of the perpetrators before, during and after Jesus' crucifixion were actually fulfilling the prophetic verses in Psalm 22 that he was indeed the Messiah? Possible, provided that the audience knew about Psalm 22.

Author's intended meaning and audience

2009-04-09T10:21:00.002+08:00

Having read excerpts, particularly on Jesus utterances while on the cross, of several top rated commentaries on the book of Matthew and Mark (Google Books is a great tool for 'substantial' previews), I have a perception that most of the commentators tend to focus on the layer of meaning which I would label as the third layer i.e. the layer of meaning as understood by us as modern readers cum believers who have already build an understanding based on the tradition that we have received. What I feel lacking is the second layer i.e. the layer of meaning that speaks of the purpose of the author in writing the text that implies his perception of the audiences that he is speaking or writing for. It is of course difficult if not impossible to actually deduce objectively or with certainty what is going on in the author's mind as meanings are always in a state of flux as we construct it over time, but I do believe that evidences from the text itself could allow us to build a probable understanding of what the author had in mind. I found this exercise lacking in the excerpts that I read on the Lord's cry, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?". To my surprise, some of the commentaries even use the meanings from the third layer to develop the first i.e. the layer of meaning as understood by the people involved in the events. Some of the commentators write with an air of certainty that they could peep into Jesus' mind and understand what he was actually thinking or feeling. Caution should be reflected in the language of our writing when doing this. Having said that, I do not deny that I have benefited quite a bit from the commentaries especially the social-historical aspect and on how they are written.

Victory or shame? Eli Eli ....

2009-04-08T16:01:00.004+08:00

When the pastor informed me that I would be sharing for 10 minutes this Friday on one of the seven utterances that the Lord spoke while on the cross, he could not have chosen a more difficult verse for me. Matthew 27:46. I turned on my pocket E-Sword and searched for the verse only to find that I had no idea on how to understand and share its meaning apart from the obvious. That the Lord was crying out to God during his moment of distress. This was how limited my understanding was.

Then, I took out my old-but-new-because-of-unused Keener's Bible Background Commentary and equally old-but-new-because-of-unused F.F. Bruce Bible Commentary to check on other possible understanding of this verse. It was only then that I realized Matthew and Mark were using Psalm 22 to interpret the events of Jesus' crucifixion. What was the connection? Why use this Psalm to interpret Jesus' utterance? Why maintain the Hebrew and Aramaic language forms in Matthew and Mark?

I began to see that there during the event of the crucifixion, the surrounding people, some who were obviously the Lord's enemies, did not understand why Jesus cried out. They misunderstood him, in the Hebrew and Aramaic form, and thought that he was crying to Elijah for help. To them, this clearly showed that he was not the Messiah, Saviour, King of Israel, or Chosen One, because God had abandoned him, did not rescue him nor gave him the power to save himself. This showed that he was a defeated normal human being who taught he was someone great from God. This was to them a moment of defeat and shame.

Matthew and Mark were in some way trying to correct this misunderstanding and provide a way for Christians in the first century to comprehend what was actually happening. They drew on Psalm 22 as an analogy between the sufferings of David and Jesus. David suffered under Saul even though he was chosen by God to be the anointed king of Israel. His suffering was due to injustice done to him by Saul. Jesus was also the Chosen One, the One whom God was well-pleased, the King of Israel who was appointed to save them. But he too suffered terrible injustice under the hands of the rulers of Israel, the high priest and his council. Matthew drew on many instances from Psalm 22 to interpret the crucifixion of Jesus in order to show that the prophetic utterances in Psalm 22 were now being fulfilled 'unknowingly' by the perpetrators. This was too him not a moment of defeat nor shame.

What was once understood as proof of his failure and a mockery by the Lord's enemies had now become the key for Matthew to tell his audience that Jesus was not defeated on the cross. This was God's way of victory over sin and death. For as in Psalm 22, the suffering king David indeed was redeemed by God and installed as the ruler of Israel, so was Jesus proclaimed as the Lord of the whole universe after his resurrection. Matthew showed that Jesus, in his distress, articulated his current sufferings and eventual victory by calling out to God using Psalm 22. He knew the what was happening and what would be the final outcome. To him, this was not a moment of defeat nor shame.

As Christians, we will not be able to escape injustice, sufferings, or calamities. Sceptics would question us if bad things are to occur to believers. They might even mock us saying that if we are the chosen ones of God, why has he allowed such sufferings and evil to happen to us. It is a moment of shame to those who do not understand. As Christians, we draw our strength and hope from the events of the crucifixion. That just as our Lord had suffered, we too will bear such pains. And as the Lord was vindicated by God, so too will our hope and faith be placed in the hands of God. That he would indeed deliver us. That we too might experience and understand that these are not moments of defeat nor shame.

Types of Commentaries

2009-04-07T15:24:00.000+08:00

After browsing through the socio-historical commentary of John's gospel written by Craig S. Keener and comparing it with the pastoral and concised one written by F.F Bruce, I cannot help, but conclude that I am more inclined to the types of commentaries that are related to the former.

Maybe this is because of my natural inclination towards historical subjects. I find commentaries that merely describe systematic theological interpretations of the verses uninteresting and 'dry'.

Though I understand that this is merely my own subjective preference, I have no qualm to say that commentaries that take into account of the socio-historical contexts would be able to provide meanings that are closer to the original meanings of the texts as understood by its original audience.

Age of Impressions

2009-03-27T10:17:00.004+08:00

" I think what is most bothersome in this book is the way it sets up discussions, pursues a topic for several pages, often noting the point is not as devastating as the impression given (usually with a sentence that qualifies things so the author has cover) and then continues to launch in a direction that implies more than the evidence really gives, leaving a greater impression about what is said than the author claims in the qualification."

Just read part of Bock's review of Ehrman's latest book, Jesus Interrupted. I think if Ehrman is using impressions to sell his arguments as facts, then I think he is really smart. I have seen enough to convince myself that people generally accept or disapprove information as facts or truths based on the impressions that they perceived subjectively. So, it seems that Ehrman is riding on the wave of postmodernistic scepticism by creating impressions that the Christian faith is no more than merely a myth. I think he knows that such impressions are more potent than stating the bare facts. He must have learned it from Dan Brown in his bestselling novels.

N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman on The Problem of Evil

2009-03-26T18:56:00.002+08:00

Just saw this on NT Wright Page. Audio: N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman on The Problem of Evil

Critical but not inflammatory

2009-03-26T13:48:00.003+08:00

As Christians, I think we can be or should be critical of the political situations in our countries. However, I also believe that we are called to be peacemakers and thus, I think, in our criticisms of political characters, policies and parties, we should avoid discourse that are inflammatory, causing unnecessary anger that creates a volatile environment. We are to bring peace, not chaos, no matter how much we are hurting due to these political figures and their corruptions.

What should be included in bible study - an ongoing reflection

2009-03-25T11:36:00.004+08:00

I have told my pastor that I would like to open my house for a house fellowship with a focus on bible study. So, it got me thinking about what I should prepare as a basic bible study for believers of all levels, especially for the new believers. I was thinking over this while driving and meandering about the house (indeed ideas come to you when you are least concentrating on them). Initially, I was thinking of doing Romans since I just bought Moo's commentary recently. Then, I asked myself this question, how come so many believers were so illiterate about their beliefs and were so easily drawn away by any new doctrines that claimed the authority of being inspired by the Spirit? I thought this problem would provide the questions for the bible study to answer. It gave me a framework to reflect on. I though one of the most obvious observation would be that we really do not know much of the origins of our Christian faith. We were never taught by the leaders in our church on the origins of our faith, the origins of our bible and the origins of the church. We were brought up in a culture that regarded the study of history as something to be done only when sleep escaped us.

So, bearing this in mine, I thought a basic bible study needs to include at least the following topics.

The story of God's dealings with humankind throughout the Old Testament
The story of God's dealings with humankind through the Messiah and Lord, Jesus of Nazareth
The story of the church from the first century until now
The story of the bible from the first century until now

A humongous task indeed to make this understandable to brethren who have never exposed themselves to such stories.

Amazing man and grace

2009-03-24T12:53:00.001+08:00

Charismatic Movement, Discernment and Anti-Christ

2009-03-24T11:59:00.006+08:00

I just read this from my Google Reader, a quote by Christianity Today of Charisma's editor on Todd Bentley controversy and Lakeland revival.

" One critic, Charisma editor J. Lee Grady, faulted Bentley for sending the charismatic movement into a "tailspin." He quoted an anonymous Pentecostal evangelist who said, "I'm now convinced that a large segment of the charismatic church will follow the Antichrist when he shows up because they have no discernment." "

This really echoes and confirms my sentiments of the danger of the lack of discernment amongst believers in the charismatic circle, especially those linked with Peter Wagner's self-termed apostolic and prophetic ministry. (I am speaking as a thorough-bred charismatic who appreciated Wagner's work on spiritual giftings and church growth in the early 90s.) The local congregation here in Malaysia is not spared of this predicament. We are running to every new revival meeting and prophetic convention, taking in all sorts of so-called apostolic and prophetic teachings as if these are the actual revelations of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ without following Paul's advise on how to evaluate these prophecies. It really scares me how close this situation is when compared with the following end-time warning by the Lord of false prophets and those who follow them.

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. (Mat 24:23-26)

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Mat 7:15-24)

I am afraid this warning equally applies to some of the teachings currently propagated by some of the mega-charismatic churches constantly harping on health, and wealth as the full gospel of Jesus Christ.

Work of faith

2009-03-22T12:57:00.000+08:00

"remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."

This is interesting because it tells that our faith will consequently lead to work. Indeed, our faith is realized and visible through the actions we take and the things we do. And ultimately, our rewards will be based on these works of faith.

Meanings of 'saved'

2009-03-08T13:23:00.003+08:00

Reading Ephesians 2, I am beginning to see that when Paul uses the word 'saved', he is using it for two separate way or event. In Ephesians 2, it is used to signify the event when one is 'saved' from a life of sins. It is the turning point, when one becomes 'alive' to God, realises what he has done is wrong and is given the Spirit to lead a new life. The second meaning of 'saved', especially in the book of Romans, refers to the event in the future when we are finally delivered from our sinful bodies and given a new 'resurrected heavenly body' in which we will sin no more (Romans 8).

This understanding helps me to solve an issue that I have been deliberating on in my previous postings. In my previous postings, I mentioned that salvation is an ongoing process and journey which would only be completed when Christ returns. This goes again the common practice that sees salvation is completed the moment you 'received' Christ and 'said' the so-called 'sinner's prayer'. I see that such an understanding has a weakness which gives the avenue to believers to fall back on a false assurance that they are saved simply because they said the sinner's prayer, but continues to live an unrepentant life, unrenewed by the life of the Holy Spirit (me included).

While convinced with my own interpretation, I was unable to solve the dilemma that arose from the verse in Romans that says one is saved when he believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth. This shows that the event of being 'saved' has occurred in the past. Yet, there are so many other verses, e.g. Romans 5, that says otherwise. Having understood the two separate usage of the word 'saved' by Paul, I am able to find a solution to this dilemma i.e. Paul is referring to two different points of salvation. The first point is when we believed, rescued from living in sins and disobedience towards God's law and covenant. The second is when we are delivered from our bodies of sin and death completely.

Wrongs

2009-03-03T23:11:00.002+08:00

to make inflamatory accusations is wrong
to take matters into your own hands by harassment is wrong
to blindly pain each side as totally evil is wrong

Evolution is science and faith gives meaning

2009-02-13T19:37:00.005+08:00

I have always considered evolution as a scientific theory which is worth all its merits. It only becomes ugly when radical atheistic scientist like Dawkins turns it into an indisputable truth to throw out any forms of belief in God.

Faith, especially the Christian faith, provides an element that scientific evolution cannot offer, the meaning of our existence and the sense of overall purpose. These are so vital that if they are taken away from us, we could really fall into despair and hopelessness.

What is right

2009-02-05T20:01:00.003+08:00

This is to all political parties in Malaysia.

Party hopping is wrong.
Welcoming party hoppers is wrong.
Party hopping without fresh by-elections is wrong.

What is right - a law that disallows party hopping and demands a fresh by-election whenever and to whomever it occurs.

No fear to engage

2009-02-03T23:51:00.003+08:00

Reading Theos' comment on the atheist bus ad, I realise that Christians need not fear to engage in healthy and critical conversations or debates with parties that are less sympathetic or totally against Christianity. Christians should shed the fear that if we lose the debate, we will cause damage to God's work. I think biblically, Christians are to understand that only God can cause the work we do in His name to increase and prosper. All we are required to do is to know the reasons for our faith well and hold fast to the end. Not a stoic response, but always ready to engage and explain our faith, and continue to learn and grow in the knowledge of the Lord along the way. I should begin to shed my fears now.

Dangerous rhetorics, vengeance has no end

2009-01-15T19:34:00.006+08:00

I am sadden at how a group of local poets raised their objections on the war in Gaza by using their poetic skills to paint dangerous rhetoric that is no different from committing genocide. The difference is that their weapons of war are their poetic license and creative language, instead of concentration camps and nuclear holocaust.

They call for the destruction of an entire nation and race without differentiating who amongst them are in the right and in the wrong. They paint individuals as irrelevant and symbolized them as a whole with a devilish icon of an accursed race.

Little did that realise that this is no difference from the same accusations they hurl against their enemy which they deem as trying to destroy the Palestinians. These poets are equally committing the murderous scheme which they judge their enemies are doing. It is like throwing stones in a glass house.

Any killings, whether in war or in peace, soldiers or citizens, adults or children, with or without murderous intent, is wrong. An eye for an eye has no end.

The war in Gaza must be stopped. Soldiers must be withdrawn. Rocket firing must stop. A tribunal must be set up to plea the case of the innocent parties. Re-compensation and repentance is a must. Then only, perhaps, we can see peace and reconciliation.

My own personal reformation and N.T Wright

2009-01-01T16:50:00.004+08:00

I think reading and hearing N.T. Wright have become my own private 'reformation' while journeying on the path to understand first century Christianity and the Church. This is especially true on the topic of how the gospels were most probably understood by first century Jews and how it should be understood today. And as I venture outside the literature of biblical studies and the historical studies of the first century Mediterranean world, I find more evidence that corroborates with what Wright has said.

For example, while reading Martin Goodman's Rome & Jerusalem, I come across the passage that talks about how the Jews of that time understood the term redemption. They did not separate the spiritual and the political meanings of the word. Most of us would readily think that it means being redeemed from our sins. But this was not so for the first century Jews. Redemption has huge political and spiritual significance for them and these meaning are intertwined and inseparable. Redemption to them means the political independence of the nation Israel as God returns to rule their nation and triumph over their enemies which is the evidence that God has forgiven and justified them as His people. This was the worldview of the first century Jews and as we read again the gospels or the letters of Paul, we really need to take into consideration this contextual element. If not, we will be committing an error of reading meanings into the texts that were originally not there or not being perceived as such by its first century audience of Jews and Greeks alike.

Michael W. Smith - Christmas album

2008-12-30T04:05:00.003+08:00

This Christmas, I really enjoyed my copy of It's a Wonderful Christmas by Michael W. Smith. I really love the soundtracks perform by the orchestra. The first two really sound like they have been pulled right off of a Harry Potter movie! Though this is not the newest Christmas album around, but I would definitely recommend it to anyone who loves a mixture of orchestra, soundtracks and contemporary music.

Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Christianity - a very short summary of similarities

2008-12-29T16:41:00.005+08:00

I just bought and finished my first Harry Potter book, Deathly Hallows, recently. I was surprised by the readability of the book and how the plot has captivated me to finish it within a week. This of course was helped by the language used compared to that of the Lord of the Rings, where I think, generally, I will be turning the pages of a dictionary to look up meanings of words used for almost every page that I read.

What interest me was how Rowling conceptualized the destruction of the Dark Lord, Voldermort. Basically, the story tells that a part of Voldermort's soul is encapsulated in Harry Potter, thus ensuring the survival of one as long as the other is alive. This also means the destruction of one will lead to the end of either one.

This is quite remarkably close to the concept of sin residing in our human flesh that makes us vulnerable to all kinds of evil doing, just as Harry was becoming more and more like Voldermort if left unresisted. The destruction of sin requires the death of Jesus on the cross which nails sin to the death of his earthly body. Yet, death could not hold on to Jesus because he did not yield to sin in his body in the first place. Thus, death is defeated and the resurrection of Jesus into a new heavenly body free from sin is secured.

This is quite aptly depicted in the final chapters of Deathly Hallows although Harry did not attain an immortal heavenly body literally. Voldermort thought he won by killing Harry without knowing that by murdering him, he was actually assisting Harry in destroying him eventually. Harry's willingness to trust and obey Dumbledore, no doubt with great difficulties and struggling of the soul and mind, and offer his life as a means to save the rest of his friends is quite symbolically akin to that of Jesus. The kind of selflessness and trust despite struggling to understand it all is reflected in the Gethsemane scenes.

This can be seen in Frodor's struggle as well as if this theme of salvation by the putting to death of sin and self is reverberating strongly at the culmination of all the three books. I have my disagreements with Rowling on areas of withcraft and wizardry, but I think her final chapters of the Harry Potter series present a truth that is very compatible with that of the Christian faith.

Rivers of Living Water

2008-12-27T15:56:00.002+08:00

Often, when I read about Jesus' invitation to come and drink from the river of 'free living water', I am not moved nor alarmed by what the Lord said. Not until after watching a documentary on the lifestyle of Ephesians in the first century that I realised that having drinking and clean water for all sorts of activities of daily life was really an important element that the people living in the first century could associate deeply with.

Powerful Roman rulers and wealthy individuals with huge political ambitions would build aqueducts that cost perhaps millions today. These are huge and expensive structures that become instruments to win the allegiance and the hearts and minds of the people of the ancient Roman world. So when Jesus offered this 'free' living water for drinking and eternal life, many of his audience would have appreciated and dreamt of the kind of liberty and freedom in having an important element in their lives without being coerced into swearing their allegiance towards an individual or a ruler which they would despised because they would be subjugated to act according to their will and purposes. Having an offer from Jesus to obtain such free water for living was indeed an attractive one when what was demanded of them was their allegiance in faith and of their lives. And this allegiance, later they could see, was producing good works in their lives and changing them as a community towards higher moral grounds and a greater good. So, this allegince really made sense to them compared to that of dread and fear from a Roman emperor.

Answers from two camps

2008-11-11T20:01:00.004+08:00

This is a short opinion on science and faith. I think science helps to answer the 'whats' and 'hows' in this universe whereas faith provide the 'whys'. This is why I think they complement one another and do not contradict each other. A radical evolutionist may challenge faith with a question such as "Who created God?" and in return may be challenged by a believer on the question on "Why does the universe behave that way?". Both camps will not be able to provide a satisfiable answer beyond the replies like "That is the nature of God." or "That is how the universe works." Both are an end in itself.

My take on Gnostic Gospels

2008-09-20T15:01:00.000+08:00

It is often touted that the gnostic gospel reveal the true history of Christianity. The current post-modernistic thinking of challenging everything adds fuel to this effort. I do not doubt the usefulness of post-modernistic trend to rethink and re-evaluate so many 'givens' of history, but I also think that one should not be carried away by a new wave and suspend our critical faculty while surfing on it. One such case is the gnostic gospels.

The logical sequence of popular thinking concerning gnostic gospel often begin with the idea that the history of Christianity is written by those who have defeated other sects or forms of Christian beliefs such as the gnostic version of Christianity. This goes well with post-modernistic scepticism on what Christianity is about and the nature of its history. The evidence to support this notion is said to be found in the content of the gnostic gospel writings such as Gospel of Philip, Thomas, Mary etc. which differs from the traditional stories found in the four gospels in the bible. The case is then built stronger with the mistakes made by the Christian church that are so rampantly found throughout the course of its history.

With the two evidence, the premise is set to reinterpret everything that has been said and know about the bible such as the character of Mary Magdalene. Indeed there is a need for the church to re-examine its traditional view that she was no more than a sinner or worse a prostitute. In fact, the bible never attributed this role of a prostitute to her and actually held her with a high esteem as the earliest witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, something that you would not normally do in the milieu of the first century if you want your stories to be creditable and accepted.

Current popular views championing the redemption of Mary Magdalene's character seize on the gnostic gospels as strong evidence showing how the early Christian community had distorted Mary's reputation. But these views are wrong because they are based on two false notions. First, all gnostic gospels view Mary and the position of women highly. Second, the negative perception of Mary was attributed to the first century Christian church.

The truth is that some of the gnostic gospels held a far worse perception of the role of women than what they are normally credited for. One of the gnostic gospels goes as far as to say that women need to be transformed as man before they can be allowed into heaven. Another serious issue concerning the testimonies of gnostic gospels is that all these gospels lay hold on a specific disciple as the truest of all the disciples whom Jesus Christ has passed on esoteric wisdom to be given to the rest through that chosen disciple. If this is to be believed and accepted as the real Christianity than we will be split apart because each of the gnostic gospels claim that it has the real form of Christian teaching while mocking others as hopelessly lost souls blinded by the god of this world.

As mentioned earlier, the first century Christian church never held a negative view of Mary Magdalene. This is due the teachings of some in the later centuries. So there is no evidence to accuse the first century Christian church of being involved in a struggle of power against Mary Magdalene. The only struggles we see are the struggles against another form of Christianity that seems to have been influenced by gnostic teachings and the freedom the believers have in not following the ceremonial laws of Moses. There is no evidence of the male apostles discrediting her in the gospels in order for them to gain control of the church. On the contrary, we see in the gnostic gospels, mockery made by male apostles on each other and on women, so to discredit them as followers of the true teachings of Jesus and to credit the different championed disciple in each of the gnostic gospels as the only enlightened one.

It seems that in the effort to champion a popular post-modernistic history of the Christian church, some scholars and producers of historical documentaries have downplayed on purpose the contradictions that exist amongst the gnostic gospels and only highlighted the parts that support their effort. This to me is even more of a case of selective history writing compared with the allegations made of the first century Christian church.

My take on evolution and creation

2008-09-17T13:20:00.003+08:00

I think the fundamental issue with an evolutionary theory of the origins of life is that it is 'empty' of meanings and does not answer the innate necessity of humans to find meaning and hope of their existence and the reality that we live in. The biggest problem for some in the Christian circle is their inability to adopt a model of creation that is not limited to their interpretation of literal 'seven' earthly 24-hours days which spirals to even more speculations (considered absurd by some scientists, and perhaps rightly so) that paradoxically are detrimental to their arguments.

I find it amusing that some scientists are so adamant to deny the existence of God in the process of creating the universe. I can fully accept the models and theories proposed by scientists on the creation of the universe(s). I think they are describing the process of creation, how it happened and the data they found to support it. With each discovery from Newton to Einstein to its current possibilities of multi-verses, dark energy and matter, from quantum physics to string theories, I could see that science is uncovering more and more data to understand the reality and process of the universe. This is great because as a Christian, I could see the link between Genesis 1 to these discoveries and explanations. I just simply could not see why they have to be contradictory and irreconcilable, where it is either the position of evolution or creation. The only scientific argument against this creation being created by God is that scientists could not find data to prove God's existence. But this could also easily be because the scientific methods, models and principles used are always geared towards the tendencies to disprove his existence rather than a neutral standpoint to postulate hypotheses which could be tested theoretically or the gathering of actual data. Remember that the discovery of dark matter was considered by Einstein as his big mistake which later scientists proved to be true to explain the current status of our universe. We cannot discount that one day, science can may perhaps show us more empirically through their scientific models (albeit less antagonistic) the existence of the Creator.

Teachings of Peter Wagner group

2008-09-14T13:17:00.001+08:00

I have been thinking over the question of what is wrong with Peter Wagner's teachings. As I read through some of his letters posted at Global Harvest Ministries, I could find examples in the bible which he could use to support his writings loosely, but still with possibility. Then I realised that the answer, as I have been saying in the past about the entire spiritual warfare movement, is Jesus Christ has become secondary to all teachings on prophecies, spiritual warfare methods and spoils of war, financial blessings, establishment of dominions and apostolic ministry etc. In other words, the sole attention is now turned towards the movement itself rather than the centrality of Jesus Christ and His message. It has turn towards the esoteric and special revelations that are coming out of the mouths of these self-termed apostles and prophets. It makes me think whether this is another form of gnosticism and the scriptures no longer apply when compared to these prophecies. The removal of Christ from its central focus and the usurp of authority from the scriptures by new revelations and prophecies delivered by a few and which are hardly evaluated for its authenticity, is I think the biggest problem with this movement and its teachings.

Dethroning Jesus

2008-06-16T06:12:00.004+08:00

I am quite happy to have bought Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace. It is easy reading and answers some of the questions people would normally ask concerning Jesus because of what they hear and see through popular media. It is written to clearly provide answers to 6 popular claims on the bible, who Jesus is, conspiracy theories etc.

It is a good starting point for those who are interested in these questions before moving to more serious studies which are also highlighted in the book. By the way, the book is relatively cheap for a hard cover edition. This is another added point.

Agreeing and disagreeing with politics

2008-03-31T21:40:00.003+08:00

I recently read a posting from a local Christian blogger who believes strongly that the church should be involved in politics especially being an opposing force to perceived injustice and evil conduct. I read this post with a mixed feeling, a heavy heart and an interest to change my own conservative views.

While his posting has made me agree that the church must not be silent in challenging the ills of a bad government, I feel disappointed that being involved in an opposition party seems to be the only way proposed.

While I agree with him that we do not blindly submit to the governing forces and should not use Romans 13 to justify a blind obedience towards the government, I do not agree with his exposition and conclusion that just as Paul was challenging the people for the allegiance of faith towards Jesus Christ as King and Lord, we should be challenging the government through the means and the vision of an opposition political party.

I believe that although it is right to take the examples of the prophets in challenging the evil Pharaoh and Israelite kings, I feel that they did it while maintaining the strong identity that they did it because of God.

I write this not because I know the answer to the questions I ask myself concerning faith and politics or that I dare to follow the way that I think might possibly be the answer. But I feel that the church must seek another way to be involved in politics and at the same time maintain the unique identity, spirit and grace (costly) of our Lord Jesus Christ.