Rainbow Nation

Rainbow Nation don’t cry

Beloved country don’t you die

While your children sigh

Saying why oh why

Why this why now

Could we not somehow

See the writing on the wall

And make a better call

Having won the world cup

Is our time now up

Are we now has been

On the African scene

We are not lying down

For a virus with a crown

Seen miracles before

Lord, give us one more

Is our money down the drain

Was our hard work all in vain

How are we supposed to cope

If there isn’t any hope

We in the South

Shall say with one mouth

Nkosi sikelela

Hallelujah amen selah

There’s a God up in the sky

He will hear us when we cry

We must never give up praying

Listen to what he is saying

A defender of the poor

Our sickness he will cure

In our pain he’s very near

And he sees our every tear

He will drive away our fear.

Trust

In the minds of most people, especially young people, the words ''obey" and "obedience" create a negative impression. No-one is eager to blindly obey a command issued by an unknown person. Our default mindset is to be suspicious and even distrustful of the unknown.

When we are distrustful of a trustworthy person, however, it hurts both the person and ourselves. Adam and Eve were seduced into breaking the single commandment their Creator had given them. This could only happen after distrust in the Almighty had been sown and taken root in their hearts. He had expressly warned Adam that death would be the immediate consequence of eating the forbidden fruit.

The human condition has not changed. Our natural tendency is to want life and what it has to offer independently from the one who created life. That is what Adam got after he had eaten the forbidden fruit. But the innocent relationship he had previously had with God died.

The cost of discipleship

 It is a human tendency to "brand" people by something they have done or are known for. Bible headings often label people in a way the gospel writers never did. When Jesus told the parable of a Samaritan who had compassion on the victim of a robbery, he did not call the Samaritan "good".

In the same way neither did Matthew, Mark or Luke refer to a "rich young man". In Mark 10:17 the word used for him is simply "one". In Matthew 19:20 he is "a young man" and in Luke 18:18 he is called "a certain ruler".

Thousands, if not millions of people living today should similarly consider themselves rich, young and "ruling". The young man led a full and exemplary life in which he also seemed to be successful. But he was not sure about his eternal destiny. He desperately wanted to make sure he would be counted among the "righteous", those who would live forever.

Jesus loved him and wanted the very best for him, but his criteria for discipleship were much stricter than the man had anticipated. Jesus is not happy to be an "add on" to our lives. From the very first words he spoke to the end of the conversation his intention was to get this fact across.

Firstly, Jesus was not opposed to the ruler calling him "good", as long as he was willing to acknowledge that the attribute "good" belongs exclusively to God. Then, as a kind of teaser he referred the man to the upbringing he must have had in a Jewish household. He must have learnt "the law". When asked "which commandments" Jesus conspicuously omitted the "first table" commandments which relate to God. He only quoted the commandments which refer to our behavior towards other humans.

Finally the young man was ready to receive the clincher: "Give up your present life and follow me". If he could put two and two together he would notice that Jesus equated the first commandments with following him. In other words, Jesus was making a not too subtle claim of divinity.

The immediate benefit of following Jesus would be the promise of an eternal "treasure in heaven". The man went away sad but had much to meditate on: Did he really prefer an eternal treasure to earthly treasures?

Perceptions

In John 9 the apostle relates a story of a blind man receiving his sight. Jesus' disciples asked him if the man's blindness was due to sin, either his own or that of his parents. "No", said Jesus, "but that the works of God may be displayed in him".

The man was healed after Jesus had "made him eyes of mud and spit" (my version) and the man had washed in the Pool of Siloam. He soon became a champion of Jesus' cause. He went so far as to insult the religious leaders, for which he got kicked out of the synagogue.

What I have never heard anyone preach on, was the fact that the man could have responded very differently. He could have thought "What kind of a God would let me suffer without sight from birth so that he could show off his own power?"

We are confronted every day by events which we can attribute to God's goodness or to his indifference to our feelings. The man could have blamed God for thinking only about his own and Jesus' reputation and lacking compassion. If he had done that, he would have just demonstrated his own egocentricity.

Brothers

I have always found Psalm 133 a little strange. What does "It is like the precious oil ... upon ... Aaron's beard" got to do with   "See how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity"? None of the commentaries really satisfied my curiosity regarding this unusual juxtaposition.

Then I thought about brothers in the Bible and how seldom they related to one another in love. Moses and Aaron served God together for 40 years. I am not aware of any other such connection between brothers in the Bible. On the contrary, the relationships between brothers were often acrimonious.

The very first man born of a woman murdered his brother (Genesis 4:8). When God found a man with whom he could start a nation, his eldest son had to leave home while in his teens (Genesis 21:9-14). Jacob feared for his life because of his twin brother (Genesis 27:41). Jacob's sons came very close to killing their brother, but sold him into slavery instead (Genesis 37:18, 28).

Psalm 133 was written by David. His brothers did not treat him kindly when he went to bring them food while they were at the battle front (1 Samuel 17:28). But his greatest heartache must have been the toxic relationships among his sons. Absalom killed Amnon because he had raped his sister (2 Samuel 13:28). Even Solomon put one of his brothers to death because he had made a grab for the throne (1 Kings 1:5; 2:25).

On which relationships David was reflecting we can only wonder. But he must have found comfort in reading about Moses and Aaron, even though their relationship had also gone through an unhealthy patch (Numbers 12:1).

Thorn in the flesh

After Saul, the first king of Israel, had repeatedly disobeyed the Lord, an evil spirit started to plague him. God had chosen him (1 Samuel 10:1) but was disappointed with his performance as a leader. Saul was more interested in his status than in following God's instructions, given to him by Samuel, the prophet who had anointed him as king.

Soon after Saul had been anointed the Spirit of God came upon him (1 Samuel 10:10). He had done nothing to merit such favour. But because of his rejection of God's directive, an evil spirit was sent to torment him (1 Samuel 15:23; 16:14). Saul went from bad to worse and eventually resorted to witchcraft (1 Samuel 28:7).

About one thousand years later an evil spirit tormented another Saul, also from the tribe of Benjamin. His response was very different to that of his namesake. He prayed 3 times that it would leave him, but submitted to God's will when the Lord said "My grace is sufficient for you" (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

Authority and power

Jesus attributed Peter's recognition of him as Messiah to a revelation from his Father in heaven. He then told Peter that things he bound/loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19). On the face of it one could conclude that Jesus gave Peter carte blanche to rule his church.

Since Jesus made this statement in the context of "on this rock I shall build my church" someone could say that the authority to bind and loose was not given to Peter but to his church. This point of view can be defended by referring to John 20:23. However, when he spoke to Peter, "you" was in the singular in Greek. That is also how it is translated in other languages.

Nevertheless, Peter's fallibility was demonstrated moments later when Jesus called him "satan" (Matthew 16:23). His authority was therefore dependent on his being "in the Spirit". When he was "in the flesh" Peter was advancing the agenda of satan.

That same authority was given to the 10 apostles after Jesus had re-commissioned them and breathed on them (John 20:21-22). On this occasion they received the Holy Spirit and were authorised to forgive anyone's sins or to withhold forgiveness. No-one who has read church history with an open mind can deny that churches have abused their authority too many times to count. My conclusion is therefore that the authority is dependent on "being in the Spirit", however mysterious that may sound.

Power was also given to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. However, they only received Holy Spirit power 50 days after Jesus had ascended into heaven (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4). When a person repents of sin and receives forgiveness through faith in Jesus because of his undeserved sacrificial death, that person receives the Holy Spirit, just like the apostles did when Jesus breathed on them. Nevertheless, the apostles, Samaritans and the Ephesians received the Gift of the Holy Spirit "a second time" (Acts 2:4; 8:14-17; 19:6). In the same way modern day believers who desire God's power to do good can ask Jesus to baptise them with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).