Our 3 Grand Kids

Have not posted updates on our grandchildren for a while. Here are 3 older clips:

(1) KSP dizzy:

(2) Sophia knows what she wants:

(3) NCP sleeps soundly even when his friend is wailing!

Election based on Foreknowledge?

Q. Isn’t divine election based on God’s foreknowledge? He knew who would believe in Christ, so He chose them based on their faith.

A. No, that’s man’s thinking because this way he is in control, but it is based on a misunderstanding of:
• Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
• 1 Pet 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.
Some believe that because God is omniscient, He knows who would believe in Jesus and who would not. He therefore elects or predestines those who would believe so that they would be saved.

This is wrong because if election rested on God’s foreknowledge, then the ultimate decision for man to be saved would depend on man’s choosing to accept Jesus, which God knows beforehand and confirms. Man decides whether to receive or refuse Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and God simply endorses or rubber-stamps man’s choice. Man becomes the active initiator, while God is the passive acceptor. This is man-centered as God would no longer be sovereign and has to submit to man’s choice. No, God is always sovereign, or God would not be God; man as creature must always submit to God’s will.

When the Bible speaks of God knowing us, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. For example, in Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD (KJV). The verb “knew” meant to know by experience, not just intellectually, and in this instance even an intimate, carnal relationship. God knows us not only cognitively before we know Him, He also knows us relationally in choosing us by His grace.

Furthermore, the Bible’s teaching is that God’s election is based on His purpose and will. It has nothing to do with man placing his faith in God at all:
• Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand
• Eph 1:11 In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will.
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was based on His sovereign purpose, not conditional on anything they have done. He chose us in Christ before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4). In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will (Eph 1:5). So to say election is based on God’s foreknowledge is really to turn everything from God-centered to man-centered.

The Prodigal Son

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Younger son as main character
* Father as main character
* Older son as main character
* Luke 15 structure
* Parable of Two Sons outline
* Proportional weight given to characters

Last time we evaluated the allegorical method and found that it has use under controlled conditions. Today we apply the historical-grammatical method to the parable of the Prodigal Son.

1. Observation. While the cultural background stipulating the right of the firstborn to receive a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:17), the humiliation for a Jew to feed pigs (Lev 11:7-8), and the symbol of elevation of the robe and the ring (Gen 41:42) are relevant, the story does not refer to any historical event, nor is the grammar highly significant for this parable. However, there are primary clues from the context and literary structure.

First, the broader context of Luke 15 is that tax collectors and sinners were gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered that He welcomes sinners and eats with them (Lk 15:1-2). He then told them 3 parables which contrasted the love of God with the exclusiveness of the Pharisees. The structures of the 3 parables are the same (see Fig. 2), with a progression in value of that which was lost (1/100, 1/10, 1/2). So clue #1 from the near context is that the focus is on that which was lost i.e. the younger son.

The immediate context of the parable itself gives us clue #2. The parable ran a total of 22 verses from v 11 to v 32, but could have ended after v 24 had there not been an addendum concerning the older brother from v 25-32. However, the structure of the addendum is the same as that of the main story about the younger brother (see Fig. 3). And the link that connects them together is the father. So in fact this story has 3 themes – the younger son, the older son, and the father.

Thirdly, the proportional weight assigned to the characters gives us clue #3 as to who is the main character. It is the younger son as more than 3/4 of the entire story is focused on him, and reinforced our preliminary observation from the broader context.

2. Interpretation. The inquirer proposed 3 possible interpretations with the main character being the younger son, the father, and the older son respectively. Based on the broader and immediate contexts, I believe the main character is the younger son, with the father and the older brother as “supporting actors”. But the correct interpretation is not just A, but A + B + C, with A dominant. As I said, Jesus often use one parable to drive home several points, not just one.

Furthermore, I believe Jesus intended for His listeners to identify with the characters in the story to get the impact:
• the tax collectors and sinners with the younger son, to show that they can always repent and find acceptance by the Father,
• the Pharisees and the teachers of the law with the older brother, who reflected their self-centered exclusiveness.
I do not think identifying Jesus with the father is essential to the story, but there is nothing wrong in doing so.

3. Application. This is personal to each reader, but are you like the younger or older brother? Are you squandering your life with rebellious living and need to repent, or are you self-righteous and think you do not need to repent? Maybe you are like the father who was filled with compassion for his prodigal son to return. To you he may be dead, but pray to our Heavenly Father that he will be alive again. He answers prayers, and he that was lost can be found again.

Interpreting the Bible 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Historical-grammatical method
* Allegory

Yesterday we presented the question and suggested several resources to consult for a deeper study. Today we begin by introducing the process I used:
1. Step 1 is observation or exegesis of the passage, and answers the question “What did it mean then?” to the ancient audience. The text originally addressed an audience thousands of years ago, so before we can understand what it means to us we need to know what it meant to them. We need to look at:
a. History – the historical background;
b. Grammar – language follows rules of grammar which need to be taken into account;
c. Context – any passage must be taken in its context or it can be twisted into a pretext for anything;
d. Literary form – whether prose, poetry, parable, allegory, apocalyptic literature etc. must be considered.
2. Step 2 is interpretation and answers the question “What does it mean?” to a timeless audience. Using the analogy of Scripture, we compare and extract timeless principles or truths which are true for all times. It draws out the theology behind the passage.
3. Step 3 is application and answers the question “How does it apply to us?“. It contextualizes the principles for today, and essentially makes a homiletic statement for the contemporary audience.

The above is called the historical-grammatical method, and generally interprets a passage literally, accepting the fact that the writer says what he means and the words mean what he says. This is not to say that we take everything literally, because the method recognizes figures of speech and take the genre into consideration.

An alternative is the allegorical interpretation, which assumes that there is a deeper, symbolic, spiritual meaning behind the plain or literal meaning. Many allegorical interpretations run wild with speculations based on superficial similarities without substantial evidence, and misuse of this method brings into question the credibility of the biblical narrative as history. As a result, some scholars insist that a parable has only one central point, and that we should not try to find meaning in the details. However, Jesus Himself used allegory in His parables e.g. Parable of the Sower (Mt 13:18-23), Parable of the Weeds (Mt 13:37-43). And in both parables that Jesus explained, each detail has meaning.

On the other hand, the word “allegory” appears only twice in the Bible:
• Ezek 17:2 “Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell the house of Israel a parable.”
• Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Both allegories are identified as such, not left to the reader to wonder whether they are allegories or not. Furthermore, both of these as well as Jesus’ allegories are explained within Scripture itself, and not up the reader to speculate what each element represents.

So my view is that while in general I do not support allegorizing wildly, parables can have a major theme and multiple sub-themes, not just one point as some commentators claimed. We will turn to the Prodigal Son as illustration tomorrow.

(To be continued)

Interpreting Parables 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Recently I received a detailed question on the interpretation of parables, in which the inquirer listed three possible interpretations to the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 (see A, B, C below), with supporting argument, additional support from the background, refuting reasons, and defense against the refuting reasons. I have not posted the full discussion as that would take three posts in itself, but the correct interpretation eludes the inquirer since he is unsure which hermeneutic principle to use. I believe it is much more important to teach people how to interpret the Bible than to interpret it for him, hence my attempt to demonstrate the process I myself use to arrive at the correct interpretation in the next two posts.

Q. I have a question concerning the hermeneutic principle in the interpretation of parables. Did Jesus really want those who hear the parables unable to understand what he taught (Mat 13:10-13). The crowds had already come to Him. Isn’t it he who seeks will find? I am beginning to feel something like this when I read some parables, which appear to need allegorical interpretation to find the main theme of the parable and some detail types and antitypes as demonstrated by Jesus in Matt 13, but then lost in which allegory fits. Use of historical-grammatical method to look up at the background as an aid may not help as demonstrated in my reading of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32) below:
Who is the main character (leading to what is the main theme) of this parable?
(A) Superficially the main character is “the prodigal son”, and the main theme of the parable “repentance of the lost”
(B) The main character is “the father”, and the main theme of the parable “God’s eagerness in recovering the lost”
(C) The main character is “the elder son”, and the main theme of the parable “man’s jealousy and God’s fairness”
Which of the above is the correct interpretation (or are there other D, E… interpretations)? Can there be more than one theme in a parable, e.g. A+B, A+C, B+C or even A+B+C?
There are 3 groups of people there: the first Jesus, the second the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, and third the tax collectors and sinners. Is there a need to relate them to the father, the elder son and the prodigal son. If so, is it correct to use Jesus to demonstrate the Heavenly Father?

A. First of all, seek and you will find (Mt 7:7, Lk 11:9). I’ve written on Jesus’ purpose in teaching with parables. Please refer to:
http://raykliu.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/purpose-of-parables-1/
http://raykliu.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/purpose-of-parables-2/

Secondly, many able scholars have written on the subject of interpreting parables e.g.
• The Parables of the Kingdom by CH Dodd (Scribner 1968)
• The Parables Then and Now by AM Hunter (Westminster Press 1971)
• The Parables of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias (Scribner 1972)
• An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus by Robert Stein (Westminster Press 1981)
• Interpreting the Parables by Craig Bloomberg (IVP 1990)
I would suggest you consult one of the recent works such as Bloomberg’s second edition in 2012 where you will find much to your edification.

(To be continued)

Receiving the Holy Spirit

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
* Filling of the Holy Spirit

Q. I always believe that at the moment of conversion, the Holy Spirit enters the new Christian; it is something automatic. But in Acts 8:15-17, why did the apostles had to lay hands on those new Christians for them to receive the Holy Spirit? Nowadays, do all Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

A. Yes, that is correct. When a person is saved, the Holy Spirit regenerates and indwells him, and incorporates him into the Body of Christ. All Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit:
• Rom 8:9b And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Then what happened in Acts 8? First, let’s look at the text: Acts 8:14-17 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Several explanations have been suggested for this special situation:
1. Indwelling versus Filling of the Holy Spirit. Some scholars believe the key is in the verb “come upon”. They hold that the Samaritans’ conversion was genuine and that they already have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which was not externally visible. However, because of their Samaritan background and shallow understanding of the Scriptures, they were not filled with the Spirit. With Peter’s and John’s laying on of hands, they received the outpouring of the Spirit with power which can be externally observed.

2. God’s plan for the spreading of the gospel. The progression is given in Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. The gospel was first received in Jerusalem (Acts 2) and in all of Judea (Acts 3-7), primarily by the Jews; then in Samaria by the Samaritans (Acts 8); and finally to the ends of the earth, primarily by the Gentiles, starting in Acts 10. So Acts 2, 8 and 10 are transition points, each with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, respectively on Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. But it was Philip who preached the good news to the Samaritans (Acts 8:12), not the apostles, so the outpouring of the Spirit was delayed until Peter and John arrived to confirm the authenticity.

3. Peter holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Mt 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Peter exercised that authority to fulfill his mandate to the three main people groups:
1. the Jews on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2,
2. the Samaritans in Acts 8,
3. the Gentiles when he preached to Cornelius’ relatives and friends in Acts 10.
Again because Philip was the evangelist in Samaria, the reception of the Holy Spirit was delayed till Peter’s arrival.

4. Unity of the Church. Historically the Jews despised the Samaritans as half-breeds and did not associate with them (John 4:9). In return the Samaritans hated the Jews for their arrogance. But in the Church “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To break down the wall of hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans, the latter must be accepted into the Church on the same basis as the former, witnessed by the apostles who in turn will spread the message of unity throughout the Church. Hence the delay.

All of the above are possible. Personally I believe (4) is most likely.

Prophet? Apostle?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Prophet
* Apostles

Q. My friend listens to the messages of a man who is proclaimed to be a prophet. He used to use marijuana and prophesies when he is “drunk with God’s glory”. There is also a denomination which calls their top leaders apostles. What they preach seems strange to me. Are they really prophets and apostles?

A. I don’t think so. Many have written on the characteristics of true and false prophets. I will cite only the three verses in the Bible which give the indisputable test of a prophet sent by God:

• Deut 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
• Jer 28:9 But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true.
• Ezk 33:33 When all this comes true–and it surely will–then they will know that a prophet has been among them.

They all focus on one thing – all of what he proclaims in the name of the Lord must come true without exception i.e. his predictions are 100% accurate. This is because only God holds the future and can reveal what will take place to His prophets. False prophets may guess at outcomes based on known circumstances, probability, or even demonic sources, but none are omniscient and can predict what will happen accurately all the time. Present day so-called prophets speak in generalities and ambiguous terms such that they won’t be called to task. But pin them down to specifics with timelines to verify whether they are true or not. You will find they all fail the test.

As to apostles, some have tried to use the broad meaning of an apostle as a “sent one” to claim the title for themselves. In this sense all missionaries are “sent ones” and “apostles”. But the narrow meaning in the NT is restricted to the Twelve plus a few other individuals, as the criteria to be an apostle is given in:

• Acts 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.

To be an apostle, one must be chosen by the Lord to be a witness of His resurrection. Paul was not among the Twelve, but the Lord appeared to him and chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13, Gal 2:8). None of the present-day apostles was with the Lord the whole time while He was on earth. None was an eye-witness of His resurrection. They only claim the title to give themselves authority which they are not entitled to. Don’t be taken in by what men said. Base everything on what the Word of God said and you can’t go wrong.

What happened to Free Will?

Q. You said God chooses who He wants to save. Doesn’t that contradict free will, which supposedly God gives us? If God chooses us then we must believe, so our wills are not free after all!

A. No, there is only an apparent contradiction. The problem is that we assume divine sovereignty and human freedom must carry equal weight, on par with each other. Actually they are not equals. God as Creator must be sovereign, otherwise God won’t be God. Man as creature has freedom only as given by God, not absolute freedom. There are many things for which we simply do not have a choice or say in the matter, because we must take them as “givens” e.g. our parents, ethnicity, genetic make-up, gender etc., though some may try to change even the last one nowadays. We are free, but within the bounds God has provided for us.

It’s the same in our social interactions. We are free to be ourselves, to pursue our interests and preferences, so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others while doing it. For example, some may like to drive their cars fast. They are free to do so out on the highway, within reasonable limits, but not in the city where they may endanger the lives of pedestrians. We have freedom within the boundaries determined by law or the government. The same rationale applies to divine election. We are free within the limits God determined for us.

Let me clarify by using an illustration. No analogies can be perfect, but let’s compare our election to a chess match between you and Garry Kasparov, the world’s greatest player in my time. If you don’t like him, then pick Bobby Fischer or your own hero. Even though you may be an excellent chess player yourself, the outcome of the game is inevitable. Every move you make had been anticipated by your opponent who outranked you in every way, and had planned a series of counter-moves to block and turn your moves against you. Each and every one of your moves are freely chosen by you. No one is pointing a gun to your head to force you to go a certain way. Yet the outcome is doomed from the beginning.

In the same way, when God chooses to elect a person solely on the basis of His good pleasure and will, the end result is inevitable. The individual may respond positively to God’s grace, or he may choose to respond negatively in rebellion. The action is entirely up to the free choice of the person, but God, who is his Creator and not his equal, can arrange circumstances such that His purpose is accomplished, without violating the person’s free will. God can cause him to choose Christ voluntarily. Our problem is with our assumption, that a choice must be independent of God for it to be free. That’s a false assumption, as nothing, absolutely nothing in our universe, can be independent of God. And the sooner we realize how puny we are, the better we can appreciate the grace of God and stop imputing sinister motives to Him every step of the way. We are just too arrogant for our own good!

Graded Absolutism

Q. If a hierarchy of laws is not given in the Bible, then isn’t graded absolutism just relativism, since everyone ranks the laws according to what he perceives as important? Isn’t that just situation ethics, where everyone does as he sees fit?

A. No. Although a detailed ranking is not given, there are broad principles given in Scripture:
• Mt 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
According to the Lord Jesus, the most important of all the commandments is to love the Lord your God. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. See also Mk 12:29-31.

What about 3, 4 and 5 etc.? Well, the Bible did not spell it out as clearly, but there are guidelines:
• 1 Sam 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
• Mt 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
• 1 Tim 5:8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

We love God by obeying the voice of the Lord, which is better than sacrifice. The more important matters of the law are justice, mercy and faithfulness, which are applications of “love your neighbor as yourself”. All of them have to do with relationships, and are more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mk 12:33), and tithing. On the other hand, within the circle of neighbors, the order is immediate family, then relatives, then church family, then others.

What other priorities did the NT give?
• Mt 6:25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?
Life is more important than food and clothing i.e. material things. So based on the few examples above, we can already prioritize the main things as follows:
1) Love God, by obeying His commands;
2) Love your neighbor, by practicing justice, mercy and faithfulness;
2.1. Love your family, extended family, church family, and others;
3) Treasure life over material things.
By methodically going through the Bible to draw out what scripture considers more or less important, we can construct a biblical value system to guide our ethical decision-making.

One further word of caution: Do not confuse tradition with the word of God. Sometimes our practice is dictated more by tradition than God’s word, just like the Pharisees. They received the most severe rebuke from the Lord. Be warned.
• Mk 7:11-13 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Falsehood Views 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* David given consecrated bread
* Priests working on Sabbath

(Continued from yesterday)

2. Conflicting Absolutism – This view recognizes that all moral laws are absolute and must be followed, but also acknowledges that sometimes they are in conflict. When that happens, the believer should choose the lesser of two evils. However, since he did break one of the laws, he should beg for forgiveness for that sin.

This school has a merit in that it recognizes moral conflict, but is self-defeating in its very nature. Let me explain by using a biblical illustration. For example, Rahab lied to the king’s soldiers about the whereabouts of the spies, in order to save them and her family when the Israelites eventually attacks. Under conflicting absolutism, she avoided the greater evil of giving up the spies to die, but sinned by committing the lesser evil of lying, for which she has to ask for forgiveness. However, the condition for forgiveness is repentance, which means changing her mind about her sin and not committing it again. But if the situation repeats itself, she would not be changing her course of action and betray the spies, which means she could never really repent! The best she could do is choose the lesser of two evils, which means she is obligated to lie to protect the spies’ lives. There is therefore a moral duty to sin! Conflicting absolutism thus does not work in practice and is self-defeating.

3. Graded Absolutism – This last view, also known as biblical situation ethics, states that all moral laws are not equal but follow a hierarchy. When there is a conflict, the Christian should follow the higher law. The difference from conflicting absolutism is that in breaking the lower law, the person is not held responsible when there is no other choice.

Let me clarify with a trivial example. All motor vehicles should follow the traffic lights to ensure safety for all. However, when an ambulance is responding to an emergency, it can run through red lights without being charged, because it has a higher responsibility of saving lives. The problem with graded absolutism is that it seems too much like situation ethics. Again using Rahab’s example, under graded absolutism lying in and of itself is wrong, but lying to save lives is not. Some might say this is just depending on the situation. But it is not. It depends on the laws. It is not the same as saying “if the intention is good”, because intentions are relative, whereas the higher laws are absolute.

The biblical basis is in Mt 12: 3-5 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? The Sabbath laws clearly state that it was not lawful for David to eat the consecrated bread, or for the priests to work, yet they are innocent, because of the higher law to save lives and to serve God.

Of the three systems, personally I think graded absolutism fits the biblical evidence the best. There is still a challenge in the application, because the hierarchy is not spelled out in detail and left to wisdom. Ethical standards should not change with time and culture, because ultimately they are based on God’s character. It’s our understanding of them that may change, hopefully for the better.