Over the last 2000 years the machinations of politicians have not greatly changed. Those with ambitions to rule have always pleaded to have the best of motives. They only want to do "what is best for the people". After they gain power it is often clear to all and sundry that their aspirations had been less than altruistic.
During the lifetime of Jesus the Jews found themselves in an unenviable position, politically speaking. They had had a most illustrious empire under Solomon. The world empires of Assyria and Babylon had invaded them and taken them into exile. After the Persians had conquered the Babylonians, they allowed the Jews to go home and rebuild their temple. But Persia succumbed to the armies of Greece led by Alexander the Great. This led to the Hellenisation of the ancient world and Greek became the "lingua franca" of the empire. A large section of the Jewish population imbibed the Greek culture and language. Many forsook the God of their fathers for Greek gods. Finally the Romans wrested control of the world from the Greeks and the little land they called Palestine was part of the package.
The Romans were happy to let a nations be ruled by their own "king", provided he was a reliable collaborator who made sure that they got their tax. At Jesus' birth Herod "the Great" was king over Israel but later the land was divided. One of Herod's sons ruled Galilee but a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea.
One can imagine the turmoil in the Jewish psyche at a time like this. Their sacred writings were in Hebrew but at home they were more likely to speak Aramaean, the language of the Assyrians, or Greek. Jesus' closest friends included Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot. Matthew had collected taxes for the Roman occupiers and Simon belonged to a group who was agitating to rid Israel from the Roman yoke.
While I don't think Jesus encouraged political debates, he certainly had his opinion on the state of affairs. Many a Jew was hankering after " the good old days" when they were ruling themselves. Only, those days were not all that good. Some of Israel's kings had been as bad as the Roman government and worse.
Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God. Many Christians make the mistake of thinking that he described what life was going to be like in heaven. The 12 disciples did not see it that way. Even after he had risen from the dead they asked whether he was now going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus was in effect ignoring the political agenda of the day and promoting his own. He knew he was going to rule this world some day and wanted his followers to propagate the "new world order" he proposed.
To sum up: the Jewish Messiah is going to rule not only Israel but the world. He has already told us what to expect in terms of laws and regulations. Those who acquire the attributes he advocated will rule with him. Now is the time to grow in our knowledge of him. His church is the vehicle through which he is recruiting citizens for the coming kingdom. Like the nation of Israel, the church is less than perfect. But he said: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Saturday 6 December 2008
Monday 17 November 2008
Truth and Accuracy
Francis Schaeffer made the claim that no-one can now tuth exhaustively but we can all know truth "truely". That may seem like an awkward statement but I shall demonstrate it with the help of elementary mathematics.
Imagine two lines, PQ and PR, each 1 metre long, at right angles to each other. By the theorem of Pythagoras the length of QR is equal to the square root of 2. It has been known since antiquity that this number cannot be expressed as a fraction of two whole numbers. It can only be approximated. If someone said QR = 1.4, it would be true but someone who said QR = 1.4142 would be more accurate. Sqrt(2) can be calculated to whatever degree of accuracy one may desire but it is not a repeating decimal.
When it comes to the Bible there are many passages which contain ambiguities. For example, some of the genealogies in Kings do not agree with the corresponding genealogies in Chronicles. For those who wish to write the Bible off on account of its inaccuracies it would be instructive to heed a statement attributed to Mark Twain. I may not be quoting it perfectly but it was something along the line of: "I am not worried about the things in the Bible which I do not understand, but the things I do understand, they bother me."
And then there are sayings alleged to be in the Bible but they are not. "God helps those who help themselves" and "A fool and his money are soon parted" come to mind.
Some practices are widely believed to be Biblical but they do not have their origin there. One of these is the habit of closing our eyes when we pray. If we were to use Jesus as model we would be lifting our eyes to heaven.
After reading from a modern version of the Bible the accounts of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, I concluded that blessing food is not biblical. Then I decided to read the Greek and the King James versions. There I found that Jesus both blessed (eulogeo) and gave thanks (eucharisteo) for food (see Mark 8:6-7 in Greek or King James Version).
Imagine two lines, PQ and PR, each 1 metre long, at right angles to each other. By the theorem of Pythagoras the length of QR is equal to the square root of 2. It has been known since antiquity that this number cannot be expressed as a fraction of two whole numbers. It can only be approximated. If someone said QR = 1.4, it would be true but someone who said QR = 1.4142 would be more accurate. Sqrt(2) can be calculated to whatever degree of accuracy one may desire but it is not a repeating decimal.
When it comes to the Bible there are many passages which contain ambiguities. For example, some of the genealogies in Kings do not agree with the corresponding genealogies in Chronicles. For those who wish to write the Bible off on account of its inaccuracies it would be instructive to heed a statement attributed to Mark Twain. I may not be quoting it perfectly but it was something along the line of: "I am not worried about the things in the Bible which I do not understand, but the things I do understand, they bother me."
And then there are sayings alleged to be in the Bible but they are not. "God helps those who help themselves" and "A fool and his money are soon parted" come to mind.
Some practices are widely believed to be Biblical but they do not have their origin there. One of these is the habit of closing our eyes when we pray. If we were to use Jesus as model we would be lifting our eyes to heaven.
After reading from a modern version of the Bible the accounts of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, I concluded that blessing food is not biblical. Then I decided to read the Greek and the King James versions. There I found that Jesus both blessed (eulogeo) and gave thanks (eucharisteo) for food (see Mark 8:6-7 in Greek or King James Version).
Wednesday 12 November 2008
What's so good about laws?
Psalm 119, with its 176 verses, is dedicated to the law of God. In verse 93 the psalmist declares that he was kept alive by God's commandments.
I think the most widespread perception of laws is that they are restrictive. When I think about laws, my mind turns to what I must do or what I dare not do, if I want to stay out of trouble. So how does a law save my life?
When I read Ps 119:93 this morning it hit me. It is knowledge of the law that keeps me alive. If I did not know about the law of gravity, I could decide to walk off a high building into the air. Knowledge of the laws of electricity keep electricians alive while they work on high voltage cables. Divers, miners, mechanics and many more need to know some natural laws if they want to stay alive.
Under certain circumstances a law requires that an aeroplane's fuel tank must be 40% full when it lands. Recently a man landed with little fuel at a place which did not have his kind of fuel. He decided to fly to the nearest refueling station and ran out of fuel in mid-air. He crashed the plane and died.
By law a driver is not to allowed to overtake by crossing over a solid line in the road. Many people who have survived head-on collisions appreciate the value of such laws.
Keeping God's laws can protect us from doing things that could kill us. In our day millions are dying of Aids because they broke God's laws out of ignorance or willful disobedience. Others have defied God by doing violent crime and ended up dead.
Knowledge of God's moral laws can be very helpful, as the author of Psalm 119 found out centuries ago.
I think the most widespread perception of laws is that they are restrictive. When I think about laws, my mind turns to what I must do or what I dare not do, if I want to stay out of trouble. So how does a law save my life?
When I read Ps 119:93 this morning it hit me. It is knowledge of the law that keeps me alive. If I did not know about the law of gravity, I could decide to walk off a high building into the air. Knowledge of the laws of electricity keep electricians alive while they work on high voltage cables. Divers, miners, mechanics and many more need to know some natural laws if they want to stay alive.
Under certain circumstances a law requires that an aeroplane's fuel tank must be 40% full when it lands. Recently a man landed with little fuel at a place which did not have his kind of fuel. He decided to fly to the nearest refueling station and ran out of fuel in mid-air. He crashed the plane and died.
By law a driver is not to allowed to overtake by crossing over a solid line in the road. Many people who have survived head-on collisions appreciate the value of such laws.
Keeping God's laws can protect us from doing things that could kill us. In our day millions are dying of Aids because they broke God's laws out of ignorance or willful disobedience. Others have defied God by doing violent crime and ended up dead.
Knowledge of God's moral laws can be very helpful, as the author of Psalm 119 found out centuries ago.
Tuesday 28 October 2008
Titles and Honour
One of the earliest conversations I remember having with my father was about him telling me how a child should speak to his parents, and grownups in general. They were not to be addressed by "jy" en "jou", the familiar terms for "you" in Afrikaans. The formal term "u" was not yet part of my vocabulary since it was not used at home. "U" was reserved for addressing strangers of equal or higher standing, including God.
That is why Afrikaners use such cumbersome language when addressing an older, yet familiar person. Directly translated a sentence such as the following would be quite common at the dinner table: "Ma, will Ma please pass me the salt." The same kind of language was used when addressing an "uncle" who visited or a teacher at school.
At the age of 14 I went to a German School because that was the only high school in the town we had moved to. Germans address their parents as well as God in the familiar "du" and not the formal "sie". Children and servants are of course also "du". But in our school the principal came up with the policy that teachers should cease to call pupils by their first name from the time they reached grade 11. Instead of calling me "Pieter" and "du", they were now say "Herr van Staden" and "sie".
On my train journey to university I shared a compartment with a senior student. I was quite oblivious to the strict class distinction between first years and the rest of the student body, and talked to my train companion as if we had pretty much the same status. What was my surprise when I arrived at the hostel to find all students other than first years were to be "Meneer" to me.
During my student years in the late sixties we had to wear jacket and tie to classes but our lecturers did not have an exact code by which they related to us. To some we were "julle" and to others "Dames en Here". They never used our first names, however, only surnames. We addressed them by one of two titles, "Meneer" or Dokor". "Professor" was seldom used, even if they held the title.
In the army I was again reduced to "jy met die brilletjies" or some other degrading title. I, on the other hand, had to take great care to address superiors by the title matching their rank. Otherwise the vilest expletives were directed at me for being an ignorant "troop".
When I started work as a university lecturer I fell in with the tradition of addressing students by their surnames, sometimes adding "Mr or "Miss". They spoke to me in the same formal manner, always using "Mr", and so did my colleagues. Later on some of these students joined the staff and in the 1980's we got onto first name terms with each other. It was very much a culture that was beginning to sweep the western world. After ten years on staff my colleagues and I started using first names also. Undergraduate students addressed us by our title "Mr", "Dr" or "Prof", almost without exception.
During the early 1980's I went to America for postgraduate studies. The ages of doctoral students varied between early twenties and middle forties and we all referred to one another by our first names. Most of the professors also invited us to address them by their first names. A Japanese professor who was on study leave expressed his frustration to me at the lack of respect the American students had for their teachers. I did not see it that way; to me using a formal mode of address does not necessarily indicate respect, and vice versa.
While I was on familiar terms with my American professors, some of whom were world renowned, my wife and I attended a church where we were expected to address the preacher as "Pastor". At home in South Africa I was used to call older Christians, whether they were in full time ministry or not, "Brother" or "Sister". Today those expressions are in disrepute. It is alleged that we used them because we did not know one another's first names. However, today we address our fellow congregants by first names and tend not to know one another's surnames.
The Bible has much to say about paying respect and honouring those to whom it is due. However, in my experience over the last 60 years I have learned that respect goes much further than addressing a person by the correct title. In fact, one can use the correct title and still show contempt for the person.
Jesus did have something to say about titles. He accepted all the titles given him because he was worthy of them all. He said to his disciples "You call me Teacher and Lord, and it is right that you do so, because that is what I am." (John 13:13 TEV) The Hebrew for 'Teacher' is 'Rabbi'.
Jesus had a healthy contempt for the custom of seeking honour through titles. He instructed his disciples about the practice of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees saying: "… they love to be greeted with respect in the market-places and to be called 'Teacher'. You must not be called 'Teacher', because you are all members of one family and have only one Teacher." (Matthew 23:7-8 TEV)
If a servant of Christ insists on being called by his title or "your grace" etc, he should also give honour where honour is due and never refer to the Saviour other than as the Lord Jesus Christ etc.
Exercise: Look up when Jesus was addressed as Lord and when as Teacher. Were titles used to flatter him? One title was used by the soldiers to mock him.
That is why Afrikaners use such cumbersome language when addressing an older, yet familiar person. Directly translated a sentence such as the following would be quite common at the dinner table: "Ma, will Ma please pass me the salt." The same kind of language was used when addressing an "uncle" who visited or a teacher at school.
At the age of 14 I went to a German School because that was the only high school in the town we had moved to. Germans address their parents as well as God in the familiar "du" and not the formal "sie". Children and servants are of course also "du". But in our school the principal came up with the policy that teachers should cease to call pupils by their first name from the time they reached grade 11. Instead of calling me "Pieter" and "du", they were now say "Herr van Staden" and "sie".
On my train journey to university I shared a compartment with a senior student. I was quite oblivious to the strict class distinction between first years and the rest of the student body, and talked to my train companion as if we had pretty much the same status. What was my surprise when I arrived at the hostel to find all students other than first years were to be "Meneer" to me.
During my student years in the late sixties we had to wear jacket and tie to classes but our lecturers did not have an exact code by which they related to us. To some we were "julle" and to others "Dames en Here". They never used our first names, however, only surnames. We addressed them by one of two titles, "Meneer" or Dokor". "Professor" was seldom used, even if they held the title.
In the army I was again reduced to "jy met die brilletjies" or some other degrading title. I, on the other hand, had to take great care to address superiors by the title matching their rank. Otherwise the vilest expletives were directed at me for being an ignorant "troop".
When I started work as a university lecturer I fell in with the tradition of addressing students by their surnames, sometimes adding "Mr or "Miss". They spoke to me in the same formal manner, always using "Mr", and so did my colleagues. Later on some of these students joined the staff and in the 1980's we got onto first name terms with each other. It was very much a culture that was beginning to sweep the western world. After ten years on staff my colleagues and I started using first names also. Undergraduate students addressed us by our title "Mr", "Dr" or "Prof", almost without exception.
During the early 1980's I went to America for postgraduate studies. The ages of doctoral students varied between early twenties and middle forties and we all referred to one another by our first names. Most of the professors also invited us to address them by their first names. A Japanese professor who was on study leave expressed his frustration to me at the lack of respect the American students had for their teachers. I did not see it that way; to me using a formal mode of address does not necessarily indicate respect, and vice versa.
While I was on familiar terms with my American professors, some of whom were world renowned, my wife and I attended a church where we were expected to address the preacher as "Pastor". At home in South Africa I was used to call older Christians, whether they were in full time ministry or not, "Brother" or "Sister". Today those expressions are in disrepute. It is alleged that we used them because we did not know one another's first names. However, today we address our fellow congregants by first names and tend not to know one another's surnames.
The Bible has much to say about paying respect and honouring those to whom it is due. However, in my experience over the last 60 years I have learned that respect goes much further than addressing a person by the correct title. In fact, one can use the correct title and still show contempt for the person.
Jesus did have something to say about titles. He accepted all the titles given him because he was worthy of them all. He said to his disciples "You call me Teacher and Lord, and it is right that you do so, because that is what I am." (John 13:13 TEV) The Hebrew for 'Teacher' is 'Rabbi'.
Jesus had a healthy contempt for the custom of seeking honour through titles. He instructed his disciples about the practice of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees saying: "… they love to be greeted with respect in the market-places and to be called 'Teacher'. You must not be called 'Teacher', because you are all members of one family and have only one Teacher." (Matthew 23:7-8 TEV)
If a servant of Christ insists on being called by his title or "your grace" etc, he should also give honour where honour is due and never refer to the Saviour other than as the Lord Jesus Christ etc.
Exercise: Look up when Jesus was addressed as Lord and when as Teacher. Were titles used to flatter him? One title was used by the soldiers to mock him.
Monday 8 September 2008
Babies
Someone said, "God is an artist" and someone else said, "He is a mathematician" etc. All these are true but he is also a copier (not a copycat). God created man in his image.
The image of God in man was not complete after the creation of Adam. This is because the essence of God is love. Without someone to love Adam could not 'mirror' the image of God. For him to love the animals would not be enough, it had to be someone his equal. Hence the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.
The trinity makes sense when we analyse the concept of love. How could God create in us the capability to love if he had no experience of it himself? When God refers to himself as 'us', it is because he is not just one person. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have had a love relationship since before the world began.
Not only are we humans capable of love, but also of duplicating ourselves. The image of God in us enables us to carry on this copying process, often with disastrous consequences. Of course God is really the one 'making' the child in its mother's womb but he gave humans the power to start the process.
I am therefore a copy of a copy of ... of a copy of Adam who was a copy of God. That is why I have so many flaws. The earlier copies were better and lived longer (some over 900 years).
Another aspect of God's image involves the ability to choose. This has been the subject of a multitude of books, debates and theological arguments over many centuries. To probe the real meaning of 'free will' is to explore the nature of God himself.
The image of God in man was not complete after the creation of Adam. This is because the essence of God is love. Without someone to love Adam could not 'mirror' the image of God. For him to love the animals would not be enough, it had to be someone his equal. Hence the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.
The trinity makes sense when we analyse the concept of love. How could God create in us the capability to love if he had no experience of it himself? When God refers to himself as 'us', it is because he is not just one person. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have had a love relationship since before the world began.
Not only are we humans capable of love, but also of duplicating ourselves. The image of God in us enables us to carry on this copying process, often with disastrous consequences. Of course God is really the one 'making' the child in its mother's womb but he gave humans the power to start the process.
I am therefore a copy of a copy of ... of a copy of Adam who was a copy of God. That is why I have so many flaws. The earlier copies were better and lived longer (some over 900 years).
Another aspect of God's image involves the ability to choose. This has been the subject of a multitude of books, debates and theological arguments over many centuries. To probe the real meaning of 'free will' is to explore the nature of God himself.
Thursday 28 August 2008
Dialog on suffering
I: If there is a God, I'm not interested in him, because how can he be good, seeing he allows so much suffering?
B: Have you ever done something that hurt another person, something you were later sorry about but you could not 'reverse'?
I: What has that got to do with the discussion?
B: You'll see.
I: OK, let's say 'yes' for the sake of the argument.
B: If there is a God, should he have stopped you from hurting the other person?
I: It depends.
B: So you would want him to stop you if your action would have severe consequences?
I: Yes.
B: How should he stop you, strike you with lightning, cause your limbs or tongue to stop functioning or what?
I: Whatever.
B: So you would prefer not to have a 'free will'?
I: I don't have a 'free will' anyway.
B: So you're like a robot in some aspects or what do you mean?
I: There are things I cannot do even if I wanted to.
B: But there are bad things which you can do, right?
I: I guess so.
B: I hope you can see God's dilemma. He made us so that we are able to make choices. He took the risk that we could hurt one another.
I: He must take responsibility for it then.
B: He does, and that does not make him someone who delights in evil. He remains good and he helps everyone who wants to do good to improve his/her behaviour.
I: A pity so many must suffer pain in the process.
B: Would life not have been terribly boring if we had been programmed to do only certain things and unable to 'follow our dreams'?
I: If I was God I think I would have found it boring to create only machines, whether they are called people, or animals or plants.
B: Imagine being the only human being and having an infinite IQ. I could create the best computers and make them 'live'. It would be most boring if they could not choose some things for themselves.
B: Have you ever done something that hurt another person, something you were later sorry about but you could not 'reverse'?
I: What has that got to do with the discussion?
B: You'll see.
I: OK, let's say 'yes' for the sake of the argument.
B: If there is a God, should he have stopped you from hurting the other person?
I: It depends.
B: So you would want him to stop you if your action would have severe consequences?
I: Yes.
B: How should he stop you, strike you with lightning, cause your limbs or tongue to stop functioning or what?
I: Whatever.
B: So you would prefer not to have a 'free will'?
I: I don't have a 'free will' anyway.
B: So you're like a robot in some aspects or what do you mean?
I: There are things I cannot do even if I wanted to.
B: But there are bad things which you can do, right?
I: I guess so.
B: I hope you can see God's dilemma. He made us so that we are able to make choices. He took the risk that we could hurt one another.
I: He must take responsibility for it then.
B: He does, and that does not make him someone who delights in evil. He remains good and he helps everyone who wants to do good to improve his/her behaviour.
I: A pity so many must suffer pain in the process.
B: Would life not have been terribly boring if we had been programmed to do only certain things and unable to 'follow our dreams'?
I: If I was God I think I would have found it boring to create only machines, whether they are called people, or animals or plants.
B: Imagine being the only human being and having an infinite IQ. I could create the best computers and make them 'live'. It would be most boring if they could not choose some things for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
