Theophany

Q. You Christians say you have God appearances in the Bible. We Buddhists have spirit manifestations too. So what’s the difference? Why should I believe in your and not our own gods?

A. The difference is as big as day vs. night, or sky vs. earth. The appearances of God in the OT, or Christ before His incarnation, are called “theophanies” or “Christophanies”. Some examples include:

• Gen 12:7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him.
• Gen 18:1 Now the Lord appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.
• Gen 32:28, 30 He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” … So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” 
• Ex 3:2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

• Ex 24:10-11 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. ¹¹ Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.
• Deut 31:15 The Lord appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the pillar of cloud stood at the doorway of the tent.

Notice that the appearances could be day (e.g. Gen 18, Ex 3, 24, Deut 31) or night, in ordinary or extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Ex 3, 24, Deut 31), to individuals or groups, and there was nothing spooky about such appearances. The people realized that they saw God, but their lives were spared, so they worshipped.

In contrast, incidents of spirits appearing to people, whether in Eastern ghost stories or Western haunted houses, are invariably sinister and cause fear and unease. The people recognized that they have encountered demons or evil spirits who meant them harm and are fearful for their lives. There is simply no comparison.

Christianity’s Exclusiveness

Q. What I can’t stand is that Christians are so exclusive! You think only you are right and everyone else is wrong. Isn’t that arrogant? Other religions are more ancient than you are, and many religions have millions and millions of followers world-wide. How can you be so sure?

A.  I’ve answered questions similar to yours before, (see

Is Christianity Exclusive?

https://raykliu.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/christianity-too-narrow/), but since you asked, I’ll respond again from a slightly different angle.

Let me start by saying that the majority of religions are exclusive, not just Christianity. For example, the Shahadah is the Islamic creed which says, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. Chinese Buddhism supposedly believes in many gods. But they are also exclusive in that they believe those who don’t accept Buddha’s Eightfold Path must suffer many reincarnations, while those who do will be enlightened and reach Nirvana. Only a few religions teach the worth of all religions or combine several religions into one. But even Bahai or I-Kuan Tao claim they are right, and others are wrong. So don’t blame just Christianity for being exclusive – they all are.

And why shouldn’t they? If you truly believe that you got it right while others missed the mark, wouldn’t you say so? Or would you say that everyone is right, in order not to offend? That would be lying! And if you think you alone has the right answer, wouldn’t you want to tell others, so that they’ll be enlightened? Or would you shrug your shoulders and couldn’t care less? To pose the contention from another perspective, how come Christians’ exclusive claims are unacceptable, while someone’s intolerance of Christian beliefs is acceptable? Or why is it when Muslims claim there is no God but Allah and nobody says anything, but when Christians claim Jesus is LORD it’s intolerance? Is it because one threatens objectors with violence, but the other is too nice to retaliate? Is there a double standard here?

Secondly, contrary to post-modern thinking, unless we are talking about different aspects and not the same thing, the nature of truth is that it is exclusive, not relative, or pluralistic. The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same times. This principle is foundational in logic, how we think. If you don’t believe this we can’t even communicate, and society stumbles. Let me give a trivial example. In our decimal number system using 10 as base, 1 + 1 = 2. It equals 2 and 2 alone, exclusively. It does not equal 3, or 4, or any other number. You can try to argue that it is relative, and the answer is some number other than 2, but it won’t get you anywhere. If you disagree, try giving the cashier only $1 when you buy two cans of pop at $1 each, and see if you can get away with it. Commercial transactions do not work that way. There is none of the “I feel, therefore it must be true” nonsense. Truth is objective, not subjective, and only people brainwashed into believing “subjective is king” would buy this rubbish.

Now, if all religions claim to be true and truth is absolute, not relative, the crucial question is who really has the truth, because the contradictory claims can’t all be true at the same time. Anyone can make lots of claims, but claims need to be proven by evidence. Otherwise they’re just empty talks at best, or at worst lies that will rob you of eternal life when you put your trust in them instead of the real thing. So everything boils down to evidence. This is the case in science, in legal matters, and many things in life. You can make hypothesis in science, but without experimental proof it’s just an idea, not scientific law. You can make accusations in court, but without evidence they remain allegations, not established fact. Since I have written on this too

(https://raykliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/how-do-we-know-what-we-believe-is-true-1/

https://raykliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/how-do-we-know-what-we-believe-is-true-2/) I won’t repeat it here.

Why am I so sure of what I believe? Because of the objective evidence I’ve examined, and the subjective evidence I personally experienced. Both assure me that I “I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” (2 Tim 1:12b)

Forgive?

Q. My ex-husband was a gambler who abused and abandoned us when our kids were small. I raised them up as a single mom and now that they are grown up, he wants to be reconciled, but there’s no sign that he changed at all. I’m afraid that he will just take advantage of us, and I don’t want my children to be hurt again. Should I take him back?

A. Hard as it is to accept, you should forgive him. Scripture is very clear about forgiving those who have hurt you:

• Mt 6:12, 14-15 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. … For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
• Mt 18:21-22 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
• Mt 18:33-35 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
• Mk 11:25-26 Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. [But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions.”]
• Lk 7:47-48 For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”
• Lk 11:4 ‘And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’”
• Lk 17:3-4 Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
• Eph 4:32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

These passages clearly state that our Father forgives us if and when we forgive those who transgress against us. If we do not forgive others, our Father will also withhold forgiveness from us, because our unforgiving shows that we have not truly repented. Repentance is not simply confessing with our mouth that we have done wrong, it is changing our minds to amend, to act, with abhorrence of our past sins. We are to show mercy just as God had mercy on us, otherwise we show ourselves not worthy to receive God’s forgiveness.

Having said that, taking him back involves something more. To forgive is to let go, to give up, to release a person from his/her obligation to you, because of the wrong they have done to you. It can be one-sided, unilateral, or unconditional. However, reconciliation is two sided. Even if you are willing to forgive, if the other party does not repent, there cannot be reconciliation. You may wish him/her well, but an unrepentant person will continue to hurt and open up old wounds again, not only for you but for those you love and want to protect. Under such situations the most we can do is “love our enemies”:

• Mt 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
• Lk 6:27“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
• Lk 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.

Loving our enemies mean we do good to them – we do not exact revenge; we wish them well. We forgive them, but we don’t have to take them in as if nothing ever happened. God Himself requires sinners to repent before accepting them into His family. The Lord does not wish for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). But it’s up to them to repent, without which they can’t be reconciled to God. I think the same applies to us.

Democracy?

Peaceful demonstration?

Q. My friend sent me a video from 5 years ago, of a Hong Kong pastor defending the protests for democracy during “Occupy Central” by saying that although the word “democracy” does not appear in the Bible, the idea does. He cited examples of the Bible against authoritarian rule e.g. God creating angels and men with freewill; Moses against Pharaoh; Samuel warning the Israelites against being ruled by kings, David being chastised by the prophet Nathan, and Herod slaughtering the babies. He argued that democracy is the Christian way to govern. Is that true?

A. No, that’s not true. I watched that video and disagree with his premise and conclusion. The Bible’s system of government is theocracy (ruled by God), not democracy (ruled by people). What that pastor tried to do is to use selective incidents to establish a biblical basis for democracy, but his methodology is flawed, as he did not look at the whole picture, only the parts that suit him.

He started by claiming that when God created man, He gave him freewill, the right to choose. The supreme example is that He allowed His angel Lucifer to rebel, who became Satan. Yes there is freewill, but what that pastor did not say is that whatever man’s choice, he must bear the consequences of what he chose.

• Gen 3:16-17  The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; ¹⁷ but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

God gave Adam a wide degree of freedom (any tree he chooses), with only one exception (the tree of knowledge), to test whether he would obey. But he disobeyed, with dire consequences. The result is the fall of man and spiritual death, the penalty for sin. So freedom to choose is not the ideal to pursue, obedience to God’s command is.

With respect to Satan, yes, he wasn’t punished immediately. However, he will be cast into the lake of fire, showing that while the time of his judgment is not up yet, it is inevitable.

• Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

All rebellion will be punished, sooner or later. Do not assume delay means approval.

The pastor then cited several Old and New Testament examples against authoritarian rule by a dictator. Yes there are dangers in being ruled by one person with absolute power, but the Bible’s system is theocracy, not autocracy. Essentially, he is attacking a straw man (autocracy) to justify democracy, thus evading the core issue of theocracy. I refute his examples as follows:

• Moses against Pharaoh. God always cares for His people.
  • Ex 3:7-9  The Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings. ⁸ So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, … ⁹ Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.
  •  Theocracy is never man’s real problem.
• Samuel warning against monarchy.
  • 1 Sam 8:7  The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 
  • The sin of the Israelites was in rejecting theocracy. This has been the sin of mankind ever since Adam & Eve.
• David chastised by Nathan. Yes, David committed adultery and murder, but ultimately his sin was against God.
  • 2 Sam 12:7  Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. Ps 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.
  • Rejecting God is man’s ultimate problem.
• Herod slaughtering babies.
  • Mt 2:2-3, 13 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” ³ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. … Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.”
  • Herod rejected Jesus as King. In rejecting theocracy, autocracy raised its ugly head to cause all sorts of evil.
• In summary, autocracy is not good, so is democracy, which is basically the rich controlling the poor using democracy as a front.
  • Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes. (Also Judges 21:25)
  • When men reject God as King, everyone did their own thing. This is democracy at its worst. But eventually every man must face God for what he has done.
  • Prov 21:2 Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts.

Let me wrap up with the pastor quoting Rom 13:1a Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities as if it is conditional. He asserts that we only need to submit to the authorities if they are good and upright. If they are bad, then you overthrow them, which he labels as liberation theology. However, the context of Rom 13:1 is not conditional. When Paul wrote Romans, the Empire was persecuting the Christians, yet Paul did not ask Christians to overthrow the government. God will punish the evil government in His time.

Similarly, when Peter and John were threatened by the Council not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, their reply was:

• Acts 4:19-20 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; ²⁰ for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Civil disobedience is justified when men’s rules go against God’s commands, but the apostles never resorted to violence, as the rioters did in Hong Kong.

I also watched a video from a week ago of that same pastor leading some masked thugs knocking down a person filming their illegal activities. His action speaks louder than his words:

• Mt 7:15-16a Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits.
• 2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.