Parable of the Hidden Treasure (1 of 2)

Q. I read a famous author interpreting the treasure as international peace, and the secret to world peace is Israel. Most commentators interpret the treasure as either Christ or the Church. Is the author’s interpretation valid?

A. No, I think his interpretation did not take all clues into consideration. The parable is given only in Mt 13:44:
• The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Since it consists of only one verse, we need to draw clues from its immediate and wider context in addition to the text itself. But before we do that lets look at the historical and cultural background.

Historical Background. In the old days people typically store up their savings in the form of silver coins (Lk 15:8). There were bankers where you can deposit your money and receive it back with interest (Mt 25:27), but not all trust them and would rather keep the money themselves. Some store it at home, where thieves break in and steal (Mt 6:19-20). To keep it safe some dig a hole in a field and hide it there. However, with periodic wars between Israel and her enemies, and between Judah and Israel, people get killed and their treasures were forgotten, giving rise to the possibility of finding treasures hidden in fields.

Legality and Ethics. Scholars have raised questions re the legality of the man buying the field to get the treasure, and his ethics in not turning over the treasure to the field’s owner. Though strange to the Western mind, his action was actually both legal and ethical under Jewish law.

The man found the treasure in someone else’ field. Either he was there without the owner’s permission, or he was there with approval, employed by the owner as a laborer. If the former, he would be trespassing, an intruder. He could simply steal the treasure. He need not buy the field.

If the latter, there are two possibilities when he found the treasure. Either the field’s owner already knew of it being there, or he has no idea that a treasure existed. The former is unlikely as the owner would have removed the treasure for himself. In any event, the laborer would be the owner’s agent, and anything he finds belongs to the owner. If the latter, then the treasure did not belong to the field’s owner, because he could not lay claim to something he didn’t even know existed.

However, the laborer did not know whether the treasure was hidden by the field’s owner himself, or whether he had no knowledge of it whatsoever. The only way to test the vendor’s knowledge and claim the treasure legitimately at the same time is to buy the field. If the vendor hid it himself or knew of the treasure, he would have extracted it before the deal is closed. If he didn’t, then finders keepers applies, and the purchaser becomes the treasure’s owner. The morality is similar to finding sunken treasure in an old shipwreck. The original owners have expired a long time ago and whoever finds it can claim it. Everything the man did was legal and ethical under Jewish law.

(To be continued)

Parenting Styles

We thought we were done with formal parenting at least a decade ago, as our children have families of their own. However, our next mission trip includes giving parenting workshops as a bridge event to reach local families, so we have been brushing up on some skills we’ve forgotten, or new ones we haven’t learned before. One of them is parenting styles.

Most parents want their children to be successful and not walk astray down a wrong path. To achieve this the parents encourage their kids to develop their potential, and control their behavior to get the desired results. These two tools, encouragement and control, and the degree to which each is used (i.e. whether high or low), come in handy in analyzing the styles parents use to motivate or de-motivate their children.

If you do a chart with control (or demand) as the x-axis and encouragement (or support) as the y-axis, you can divide the chart into four quadrants, as follows. Starting with the top right quadrant and going clockwise, we have:

Authoritative (high demand, high support). The parents expect a lot, set boundaries, discipline through guidelines, and at the same time provide a lot of support via open communication, encouragement and warmth. Children raised in this environment tend to be assertive, competent, independent, yet cooperative and friendly. This is tough love, which is rare.

Authoritarian (high demand, low support). This is the old style “tiger mom” practiced by many Asian parents, pushing their children to excel. The parents are autocratic, strict and expect obedience “because I said so”. Encouragement is low. In fact few boomers can recall much communication between them and their parents. But sometimes they do get results by punishment. Children brought up under this style tend to go in two extremes. Many are anxious for approval, socially withdrawn, or react by being rebellious. However, some channel their energy positively and excel in the fields their parents chose for them.

Disengaged (low demand, low support). Classic laissez-faire. The parents are absorbed in their own pursuits, and are uninvolved in their children’s development, providing little or inconsistent boundaries and support. There is little interaction between parent and child, with emotional detachment. Such parents neglect their children, who often grew up apathetic, destructive, unmotivated, but there are exceptions.

Indulgent (low demand, high support). The parents are permissive, showering their children with affection. In becoming their children’s friends, they essentially abdicated their parental responsibility in providing little guidance. Often the children become self-centered, impulsive, and undisciplined, as they have not been properly trained to be mature, responsible adults. They also learn to be manipulative through their interaction with their parents. Sad to say, this is the trend in Western education which emphasizes self above community.

Interestingly, people often repeat the style they themselves were brought up in and apply it to their own children. For example, provided they are at least moderately successful, children raised in authoritarian homes tend to be authoritarian parents themselves, as that’s the style they know. However, if they have very unhappy childhood, they might react and do the exact opposite and become indulgent parents, moving away from their parent’s style as far as possible.

Which style is biblical? Several classic texts on child rearing are (NASB):
• Deut 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. The objective of teaching is to steer the children’s conduct and thinking; it is control. To talk in all situations is to communicate, to reinforce, to support.
• Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it. Training is directing, controlling, placing demands on the child. “The way he should go” is accepting, encouraging, supporting the child’s natural bent, not the way you want him to go.
• Eph 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Not provoking is accepting, part of nurturing. Discipline and instruction is demanding.

Clearly the biblical model is authoritative, placing high expectations of the child and supporting them all the way until they succeed. Unfortunately, many famous dads in the Bible are total failures when it comes to parenting e.g. Jacob-Reuben, David-Absalom etc. Success in one area of your life does not translate automatically into success in your role as parents. It takes conscious effort and determination.

One last warning. Children are like clay. A fresh lump is pliable and easily molded, but as time progresses it dries out and become hard and unyielding. So are children. The window of opportunity to shape the will without breaking the spirit is narrow. Soon the character is set and becomes difficult to change. We shudder at how little we knew when the responsibility was thrust upon us. Only by the grace of God did our children turn out “ok”. Pray for young parents. Without the Bible I dread to see how kids will turn out today.

Workout #1

My wife belongs to a club which sent out workouts to help its members start a fitness program in the new year. These exercises do not require any equipment, just your own body weight to give you a complete workout of your whole body. They consist of half of the exercises in the scientific 7-minute workout. The big difference is that instead of doing each for 30 sec. in succession for high intensity, you do each exercise a specified number of times. Some look deceptively simple but are in fact quite challenging for couch potatoes.

25 Squats http://vimeo.com/117387264

20 Alternating lunges http://vimeo.com/117387384

10 Push Ups http://vimeo.com/117387492

20 Sit Ups http://vimeo.com/117387586

80 Bionic Jacks http://vimeo.com/117387686

Wall Sit 60 seconds http://vimeo.com/117387839

Repeat 3 or 4 times with a 1 minute break between rounds. However, unless you’re fit to begin with, you’ll probably need a longer break, and a likely pause in between the jumping jacks as well! Another workout will be issued next week so you don’t get into a rut and lose the training effect. Have fun as you lose some weight and gain some muscles!

Did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

Q. Did Adam and Eve go to heaven? Were they saved?

A. The Bible did not specify the eternal destiny of Adam and Eve, so I can only give you my opinion. I believe they are in heaven, because:

• They knew the protoevangelism or first gospel. Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will crush your head, and you will strike His heel. They knew Eve’s offspring, the Savior, will crush the serpent’s head.
• God continued to care for them after they sinned. Gen 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Skin garments required the death of the sacrificed animal, a prefigure of substitutionary atonement.
• They continued to recognize God in their lives. Gen 4:1 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Gen 4:25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”
• Abel must have learned about God from his parents. Gen 4:4b The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering. The same can be said about Seth. Gen 4:26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.

Based on the above, I believe that even though they disobeyed and introduced sin into the world, they repented and trusted God afterwards. I could be wrong, but I expect to see them in heaven.

Parable of the Sower

Q. We heard a new interpretation of the parable of the Sower by a well-known preacher. He said the seed represents people carrying God’s word i.e. the messenger as opposed to the message. The 4 types of soil represent different situations the messenger is planted in, leading to varying results. Do you agree with this interpretation?

A. No, notwithstanding the preacher is world-renowned and I’m unknown, I disagree. Although tradition is not always right, I would be very careful before accepting novel interpretations, simply because the traditional understanding had been thoroughly tested over time. And while it is true that different circumstances do lead to different results in real life, this parable’s interpretation is not up to us to decide, because the Lord had already given us the interpretation Himself.

The parable of the Sower is given in all 3 Synoptic Gospels, in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8. While the language in Mark 4 can be misconstrued to support interpreting the seed as people being sown:

• Mk 4:15a Some people are like seed along the path, …
• Mk 4:16a Others, like seed sown on rocky places, …
• Mk 4:18a Still others, like seed sown among thorns, …
• Mk 4:20a Others, like seed sown on good soil, …

the wording in Luke 8 undeniably points to the traditional view:
• Lk 8:11 The seed is the word of God.
• Lk 8:12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, …
• Lk 8:13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, …
• Lk 8:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, …
• Lk 8:15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, …

The Lord Himself said the seed is the word of God, not the messenger. The 4 types of soil represent those who hear the word with different heart conditions. What the Lord said is determinative.

Secondly, just for the sake of argument, if the seed is the messenger, then it raises serious difficulties, e.g.
• Mk 4:4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.
• Mk 4:15b As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
The birds represent Satan. If the seed is the messenger, then the birds coming and eating up the seed would mean Satan coming and taking away the messenger, which does not make sense. It only makes sense when the seed is the word, the message, and the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved (Lk 8:12b).

A basic rule in interpreting Scripture is that for any given interpretation to be valid, it must mean consistently the same thing in a particular passage, and not different things within the same context. Otherwise there would be confusion as to what we are talking about. So based on the Lord’s own explanation and basic interpretation rules, I cannot accept the new interpretation.

Offering the Firstborn

Q. Num 3:13 “for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD.” Does that mean all the firstborn are to be sacrificed to God? See also Num 8:17. Isn’t that cruel?

A. All the firstborn belong to the LORD, but that does not mean all are to be sacrificed to God, because they could be redeemed:

• Ex 13:13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.
• Ex 13:15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’
• Ex 34:20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. “No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
• Num 3:45-37 “Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the LORD. To redeem the 273 firstborn Israelites who exceed the number of the Levites, collect five shekels for each one, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs.
• Num 18:15-17 The first offspring of every womb, both human and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals. When they are a month old, you must redeem them at the redemption price set at five shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. “But you must not redeem the firstborn of a cow, a sheep or a goat; they are holy. Splash their blood against the altar and burn their fat as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Note the following:
• Every firstborn son belongs to the LORD, but must be redeemed.
• When this law was first established, instead of taking all the firstborn of Israel, God took the Levites. Since the number of firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of Levites, the excess were redeemed at a redemption price of 5 shekels of silver. All subsequent Israelite firstborn sons had to be similarly redeemed. This is practiced to this day among Orthodox Jews.
• The firstborn donkey could also be redeemed, but if they are not redeemed, their necks must be broken. The firstborn cow, sheep or goat must not be redeemed. They must be killed. The donkey is unclean and cannot be used in offering sacrifices, so may be redeemed or killed. Cows, sheep or goats are clean and used in sacrifices, therefore must be slaughtered and burned.

When a firstborn son is dedicated to God, it does not mean he is offered as a sacrifice either. For example, Hannah gave Samuel to the LORD all the days of his life (1 Sam 1:11), and he served God as a Nazirite (1 Sam 1:22). God is not cruel, sin is, as it required the death of the sacrificial animal and ultimately the Son of God as an atonement.

Grand Kids having Fun

Children don’t really need a lot of expensive toys to have fun. When we were kids, we did not have the latest gadgets, just balls, marbles, and action figure cards. Adults spoil kids by lavishing fancy toys on them every Christmas, birthday, and for no reason. But running around, playing hide and seek, drawing etc. are just as much fun, more healthy, and cheaper too! Here our grandkids enjoy each others’ company by playing with just one ball and a few pillows. Beats going to ToysRUs!

Running around and making lots of noise:

Hiding to surprise everyone:

Order of Books in the Bible

Q. Why is Esther placed behind Ezra and Nehemiah even though chronologically it is before them?

A. I don’t know for sure but this is my guess. The Jews divide their Scriptures (our OT) into three groups, as recognized by our Lord in Lk 24:44-45 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

The order was according to the status of the authors. Psalms is the first book of the Writings and its representative.
1. The Law of Moses – the Torah, our Pentateuch,
2. The Prophets:
o Former Prophets – Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
o Latter Prophets – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 (Minor Prophets),
3. The Writings:
o Poetic Books – Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
o 5 Scrolls – Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
o Historical Books – Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah, Chronicles.

When the Hebrew OT (Tanakh) was later translated into Greek, the Septuagint LXX, for the Hellenistic Jews, the translators divided it up into 4 parts. Excluding the Apocrypha, these consist of:
1. Pentateuch,
2. Historical Books – Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Kings (our 1 and 2 Samuel), 3 and 4 Kings (our 1 and 2 Kings), 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
3. Writings: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
4. Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, 12 Minor Prophets.

The order was according to subject. The Torah was unaffected. The Former Prophets were reclassified as Historical, and grouped with the historical books previously included in Writings (Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, formerly 1 book, was divided into 2) in chronological order. Ruth was inserted to follow Judges. Esther was also deemed historical, but possibly due to the absence of any mention of God, was accepted last and added at the end. Lamentations and Daniel were reclassified to Prophets, and Writings consisted of the Poetic Books plus what’s left of the 5 Scrolls, viz. Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

Our English OT followed the order of the LXX, with the exception of the name changes from 1-4 Kings to 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. That’s my opinion, based on the groupings in the Tanakh and the LXX.

Lot

Q. Is Lot a good man or a bad person?

A. My opinion is mixed, based on the description of his character in Genesis. On the one hand, he had some good qualities:

• Courteous – Gen 19:1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
• Hospitable – Gen 19:2, 3 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” … But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. …
• Protective of his guests and family – Gen 19:6-8, 14 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. … But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” … So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!”
• Grateful – Gen 19:19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. …

On the other hand, he had some very serious character flaws and significant errors in judgment:

• Worldly, choosing what looked good. Some might excuse him because he didn’t know Sodom was wicked, but he must have known soon after his arrival and yet chose to stay. Gen 13:10-11, 13 Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company. Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
• Compromised in participating in the affairs of the city – Gen 14:1 … sitting in the gateway. The custom in those days was that the elders sit at the city gate to decide on the city’s affairs e.g. Gen 23, Jos 20:4, Prov 31:23. Again some might excuse him as trying to save the city by trying to reform it from within, but the overall picture is that he had no impact whatsoever. Gen 19:9, 14 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” … But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
• Bizarre thinking – Gen 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. What parent would do that to their children? Certainly not one who bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). It’s totally absurd!
• Vacillating – Gen 19:19-20, 30 … But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.” … Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. At first he chose Zoar, against the advice of the angels (Gen 19:17). The reason was not given, possibly because it was more convenient and comfortable than living in caves. Then he left it for the mountains for he was afraid. Possibly Zoar was influenced by Sodom and he was scared of what the people might do to him. In any event he did not think carefully before he acts and was a coward.
• Morally depraved – Gen 19:33, 35 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. … So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. Some might argue that he was not aware of it, but he allowed himself to get so drunk that it led to debauchery (Eph 5:18), and cannot escape responsibility.

However, the final assessment in the NT was that he was a righteous man. This was repeated 3 times in 2 verses:
• 2 Pet 2:7-8 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—
He was distressed and tormented, but he was also weak and ineffective as a witness. The only thing I can conclude is that despite his checkered past, he repented and finished well. Many of us are like Lot, positionally we are saved by the blood of Jesus and children of God, but in terms of our state we are poor witnesses for Christ. Remember Lot’s wife (Lk 17:32), and Lot! Learn from his mistakes. I hope we all do better.

Flexibility

The last type of exercise is flexibility, being pliable or supple. The word itself does not appear in the Bible, but the concept does, in the sense of being able and ready to change to adapt to altered circumstances. It has often been said that the most important quality for a missionary is flexibility, as conditions are often unexpected and plans need to be modified on short notice.

Paul in Acts 16 is a prime example:
• Acts 16:6-10 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Paul and his companions wanted to preach the word in the province of Asia and Bithynia, but the Holy Spirit would not allow it, and led them to Macedonia instead. They had their plans, but submitted to the Holy Spirit’s leading. They were flexible.

He taught the same thing in:
• 1 Co 16:7 “For I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit; I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits.”
So did James in:
• Jas 4:13-15 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”
Being flexible then is having a proper perspective and submitting to the Lord’s sovereignty. It is knowing God’s call and humbly following it. It is bending without breaking. You will save yourself a lot of grief if you are flexible, without compromising the principle.