Introducing Dr Annang Asumang's new book

UNLOCKING THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
available for purchase here

The New Testament book of Hebrews is both exhilarating and terrifying in equal measure. Many readers are challenged by its stirring language, yet at the same time, many are puzzled by deeply doctrinal part of the book with its arguments based on Old Testament imagery and also by the dire warnings.

Each block of the expositions in Hebrews is circumscribed in a particular space. Heb 1 is located in Heaven, Heb 2 in the World, and Heb 5-10 in Heaven and the Holy of Holies. The exhortations of Hebrews are, on the other hand, focused on movement. That of Hebrews 2 describes staying firm and not drifting, that of Heb 3-4 describes entering, and that of Heb 11-13 describes various movements such as coming, running, travelling etc.

By using a Bible Study method called Spatial Analysis, Dr Asumang, a medical doctor, Bible teacher and a contributor to this blog, shows how the various themes of Hebrews fit together to make one whole message. He also shows how the Old Testament Book of Numbers sheds considerable light on Hebrews.

Chapters of this book include:
What is the problem with Hebrews?
Spatial Analysis of a Bible Text,
Spatial Analysis of the Exposition of Hebrews,
Spatial Analysis of the Exhortations
Hebrews, Discipleship and the Metaphor of Migration.

Anyone seeking to understand Hebrews will indeed find this book of to be of immense help and a blessing. - Robbo

MIRACLES IN OUR DAY. Part III

His Grace Is Sufficient. by Gaius Columbus

Like a scientist faced with highly variable data, I think we ought to start with the invariant, the constant, the unchanging. For me, this invariant is the notion received through faith that God's word is always true. This starting place is encapsulated in the words of the Apostle Paul, "let God be true and every man a liar". When we start here, the obvious conclusion through sober judgment is that my experience, if it does not square with my conception of God's word, must change or be modified. If I expect to be performing miracles because of my understanding of some verse, but find that I am not moving the small mound in my backyard, then something about my conception is wrong.

With specific regard to healing, I recognize then that I, like many others, do not have the gift of spectacular healing. In appraising my gifts, I am compelled to come to this conclusion through sober judgment. The data trumps the theory. The weight of the evidence, the accumulated data, forces this conclusion upon me. In practical terms, when faced with a disease in myself or in others, I will pray for grace, embracing all of God's gifts to me, modern medicine, faith healing and the prayers of righteous men. If healing comes through any of these avenues, I will be grateful. If not, or if I live through a period of miracle-drought, I will still rejoice in all of God's other mercies toward me.

Casting my bread on the water, not knowing from whence my blessings may come, what I will no longer do is restrict God's grace to any one arena of operation. I will not put God in a box. I will not say that God only heals through prayer or through the ministry of a gifted healer. Remember that Paul, an Apostle recommended a little medicinal wine to treat the gastric ailment of Timothy; not everything is controlled or healed through direct miraculous activity. Similarly, neither will I say that God today works only through modern medicine. There are many reports of miracles of all degrees of wonder today. Neither the position that all healing occurs through miraculous activity or all healing today occurs through medicine is true. God can operate in whatever way He chooses, including choosing not to act, as in the case of Paul, when he himself was tormented with a thorn in the flesh. God's grace indeed is sufficient for me in every circumstance.

Ultimately, however, my relationship with God has to deepen past that which is based solely on what I can receive from His hand. It has to transcend temporal gifts. David says all I desire in heaven is you. Assurance of His love for me and relationship with Him then has to become my bedrock, my unshakable foundation at all times. Whether this love of His for me manifests in miraculous healing, modern medicine or in no cure at all, I will continue to serve and to trust Him. The one unchanging principle--the invariant-- no matter what life throws at me is His love and grace toward me, in which I am to immerse myself continually.

My barber, recently diagnosed with a liver mass and undergoing therapy, said something like this to me. “God is good even if this disease kills me”. This is my best paraphrase of what he said and the correct conception of this issue. Working within such a framework, we stand on a rock, unmoved and unmovable by the vicissitudes and trials of life, looking always to God's broader grace, only a small part of which is the spectacular and the miraculous. - G Columbus

Related posts
MIRACLES IN OUR DAY Part II
MIRACLES IN OUR DAY, a recap. Part I

MIRACLES IN OUR DAY. Part II

by Gaius Columbus

In response to the comments in my other post , I too enjoyed reading Josh McDowell's book Evidence that demands a verdict. Like Luke, his book served to assure me of the certainty of what I had believed. I doubt, however, that a hard-core skeptic, unwilling to countenance the possibility of the Divine, would have been convinced.

Calorius is correct when he says the recipient's faith plays a key role in making sense of unusual phenomena. The intransigent Pharisee attributes these spectacular events to the workings of juju or magic, the naturalist scientist to chance or to some known or as yet undetermined law of nature, and the believer to acts of Divine power and grace. Each because of his/her peculiar predisposition while agreeing that something spectacular has occurred--this is important--reaches a verdict regarding the cause that is at variance with the others. In some ways, therefore, the strength of one's previously held position can make the data irrelevant and the conclusion a foregone thing. This, in a sense, explains a lot of internet debates.

So I agree with each one of you when you say the parameters of this discussion--particularly the intended audience--have to be set carefully. My intended audience for this discussion is primarily the believer for whom the dearth of miracles in his own, and in modern life has become a stumbling block. To a far lesser extent, I also include the unbeliever who may be genuinely open to, but not convinced of the "wild" claims of the Bible; i.e., the non-Christian seeker such as the Ethiopian Eunuch or the rich young man in the Bible who deserve a serious answer, even though that answer may be of a different flavor than that offered the believer.

In response to the other comment posed by George, if one could show that our Lord's era was no different from previous or subsequent times, this would indeed invalidate my argument made earlier. The gospel narrative suggests, however, that this is not the case--again, see John 21:25. There were indeed intervals in the OT during which miraculous activity occurred at a heightened pace. Returning to the analogies used previously, this would be akin to times of higher-than-normal volatility in the markets (those not reaching spectacular levels) or to passable reception on the radio not attaining the quality of a high fidelity signal.

Such times, Christians would say, merely foreshadow our Lord's ministry. They are types of what was to come; the earth tremors before the major earthquake, followed in a sense by the aftershocks of the first century and present era. This rush or explosion during our Lord's ministry is observed not only in the frequency of the miraculous acts, but also in their magnitude, culminating in the ultimate miracle, His resurrection from death not by the intercession of men as previously recorded (see Elijah and Elisha), but by His own authority. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. I Jn 10: 17-18.

All of this, the spottiness of miraculous activity through time, suggests to me that the predominant motif in man's dealings with God is not the spectacular but rather Grace. Not “Magic” (or the magical) but rather Mercy. Grace and Mercy, present from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. Grace in the garden, grace in the stories of Abel and Noah, grace in the prophets, grace in life of David, and on and on. Indeed, an examination of the Scriptures reveals that miracles appear much later in the narrative, and then only in fits and spurts. Far more pervasive and permeating the Scripture is God's grace to His servants.

If so, God's words to Paul when he asked for healing are apt; No miracle this time, just my grace is sufficient for you. Indeed, it should be stated that unless miracles are themselves embedded in an overarching framework of grace and right theology, they run the risk of becoming mere spectacles, the voyeuristic experience of the fickle such as the crowd that followed Jesus or, worse still, a diabolical means for leading people astray as we are told false prophets and the Antichrist will do. We walk by faith not by sight.

In my next post I hope to say something of how this overarching principle of grace relates to my view of miracles today, using Paul's experience as a starting point. Till then, let me just say that I do not believe the popular notion of every Christian as potential healer and miracle-worker. I do not believe this position is supported by a right understanding of Scripture. I believe instead that on a bedrock of grace for daily living, God occasionally and even today raises men and women endowed with spectacular gifts of healing and with miracle working ability to bless us (see Roman 12: 3-8, posted below).

Spectacular miracles have and continue to accompany Christ's body as a corporate entity, but not always as individuals. His grace, however, extends past and supersedes specially gifted people and special times, remaining even in times of perceived miracle-drought. Grace is the invariant in this sea of up and down miraculous activity. It points us to the Giver of all good gifts rather than to the gift itself. It manifests in gifts received in the natural as well as in the supernatural but results ultimately in relationship. - G Columbus

Romans 12: 3-8: For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

Related post
MIRACLES IN OUR DAY, a recap. Part I

MIRACLES IN OUR DAY, a recap. Part I

by Gaius Columbus

I have been thinking quite frequently about everything that has been said so far. This link provides an enumerated list of miracles performed in the Bible and helps us to obtain a picture of the average frequency/clustering of these acts. I do not know the time interval over which these miracles were recorded, but the average rate does not appear to be particularly high until the extreme explosion of miracles recorded during the life of our Lord and His apostles.

One obvious caveat is that this list cannot be seen to be exhaustive. John suggests at the end of his gospel that what is recorded of Jesus' miracles is but a small proportion of all that our Lord performed. John 21 v 25: Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. Likewise in the early days of the church, Luke records in Acts 2:42-43, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the Apostles.

Now, leaving aside the issue of the absolute frequency of miracles (which can be guessed, but is unknowable), does anyone see a unifying theme or pattern to this list or do you feel that these acts are completely random? Is there a key to understanding their distribution over time? An easy pattern for me is what I see when I, in a sense, plot the frequency of recorded miraculous activity as a function of time. Immediately evident, is the rush of miraculous activity that suddenly interrupts the sedate baseline of sporadic signs recorded in the OT. It is plain to see on this time-ordered chart that something curious, but according to the Apostles not unexpected, has occurred.

This impression is strengthened even more by the observation that following this rush of miracles, we again witness a return to a baseline level of sporadic signs from the post-first century church until present. The pre-gospel and post-gospel eras are, in a way, analogous to the random static one hears on an untuned older radio or, to pick another analogy, the background trade volatility recorded daily on the Dow Jones. The miraculous activity recorded during the time of our Lord and His disciples, seen this way, is similar to the sudden transition from static to music or clear speech as one turns the radio dial, or to the sudden unexpected change from the steady small-scale ups and downs of the market to a sudden catastrophic market crash or market boost.

Any analyst of such time-ordered data, whether scientific or financial, would conclude without hesitation that such activity was unusual, curious, and strange, marking a significant event. The rush of miracles reported in the Gospels has the same import; it means something special has occurred--specifically, that on the radio of time or the ticker tape of history, a signal worthy of our urgent attention and exposition has appeared.

What does all of this mean? What can we discern about how God generally deals with man without putting Him in a box? For me the above observation, alone, simple as it is but added to other interesting patterns, incites thoughts in my mind regarding the overarching role that Grace is to play in our lives, a theme alluded previously by my brothers on this blog. I will return to this theme in my follow-up posts. – G. Columbus

Related posts
Authenticating a miracle
Miracles and faith
The Perception of a Miracle
What is a miracle?
Where have all the miracles gone?


References. (from http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/miracle.htm)
Miracles and signs recorded in the Old Testament
1. The flood Gen. 7, 8
2. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Gen. 19:24
3. Lot's wife turned into a "pillar of salt" Gen. 19:26
4. Birth of Isaac at Gerar Gen. 21:1
5. The burning bush not consumed Ex. 3:3
6. Aaron's rod changed into a serpent Ex. 7:10-12
7. The ten plagues of Egypt--(1) waters become blood, (2) frogs, (3) lice, (4) flies, (5) murrain, (6) boils, (7) thunder and hail, (8) locusts, (9) darkness, (10) death of the first-born Ex. 7:20-12:30
8. The Red Sea divided; Israel passes through Ex. 14:21-31
9. The waters of Marah sweetened Ex. 15:23-25
10. Manna sent daily, except on Sabbath Ex. 16:14-35
11. Water from the rock at Rephidim Ex. 17:5-7
12. Nadab and Abihu consumed for offering "strange fire" Lev. 10:1, 2
13. Some of the people consumed by fire at Taberah Num. 11:1-3
14. The earth opens and swallows up Korah and his company; fire and plague follow at Kadesh Num. 16:32
15. Aaron's rod budding at Kadesh Num. 17:8
16. Water from the rock, smitten twice by Moses, Desert of Zin Num. 20:7-11
17. The brazen serpent in the Desert of Zin Num. 21:8, 9
18. Balaam's ass speaks Num. 22:21-35
19. The Jordan divided, so that Israel passed over dryshod Josh. 3:14-17
20. The walls of Jericho fall down Josh. 6:6-20
21. The sun and moon stayed. Hailstorm Josh. 10:12-14
22. The strength of Samson Judg. 14-16
23. Water from a hollow place "that is in Lehi" Judg. 15:19
24. Dagon falls twice before the ark. Emerods on the Philistines 1 Sam. 5:1-12
25. Men of Beth-shemesh smitten for looking into the ark 1 Sam. 6:19
26. Thunderstorm causes a panic among the Philistines at Eben-ezer 1 Sam. 7:10-12
27. Thunder and rain in harvest at Gilgal 1 Sam. 12:18
28. Sound in the mulberry trees at Rephaim 2 Sam. 5:23-25
29. Uzzah smitten for touching the ark at Perez-uzzah 2 Sam. 6:6, 7
30. Jeroboam's hand withered. His new altar destroyed at Bethel 1 Kings 13:4-6
31. Widow of Zarephath's meal and oil increased 1 Kings 17:14-16
32. Widow's son raised from the dead 1 Kings 17:17-24
33. Drought, fire, and rain at Elijah's prayers, and Elijah fed by ravens 1 Kings 17, 18
34. Ahaziah's captains consumed by fire near Samaria 2 Kings 1:10-12
35. Jordan divided by Elijah and Elisha near Jericho 2 Kings 2:7, 8, 14
36. Elijah carried up into heaven 2 Kings 2:11
37. Waters of Jericho healed by Elisha's casting salt into them 2 Kings 2:21, 22
38. Bears out of the wood destroy forty-two "young men" 2 Kings 2:24
39. Water provided for Jehoshaphat and the allied army 2 Kings 3:16-20
40. The widow's oil multiplied 2 Kings 4:2-7
41. The Shunammite's son given, and raised from the dead at Shunem 2 Kings 4:32-37
42. The deadly pottage cured with meal at Gilgal 2 Kings 4:38-41
43. An hundred men fed with twenty loaves at Gilgal 2 Kings 4:42-44
44. Naaman cured of leprosy, Gehazi afflicted with it 2 Kings 5:10-27
45. The iron axe-head made to swim, river Jordan 2 Kings 6:5-7
46. Ben hadad's plans discovered. Hazael's thoughts, etc. 2 Kings 6:12
47. The Syrian army smitten with blindness at Dothan 2 Kings 6:18
48. The Syrian army cured of blindness at Samaria 2 Kings 6:20
49. Elisha's bones revive the dead 2 Kings 13:21
50. Sennacherib's army destroyed, Jerusalem 2 Kings 19:35
51. Shadow of sun goes back ten degrees on the sun-dial of Ahaz, Jerusalem 2 Kings 20:9-11
52. Uzziah struck with leprosy, Jerusalem 2 Chr. 26:16-21
53. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego delivered from the fiery furnace, Babylon Dan. 3:10-27
54. Daniel saved in the lions' den Dan. 6:16-23
55. Jonah in the whale's belly. Safely landed Jonah 2:1-10

Miracles Recorded in the Gospels
Peculiar to Matthew
1. Cure of two blind men Matt 9:27-31
2. Piece of money in the fish's mouth Matt 17:24-27
Peculiar to Mark
1. The deaf and dumb man Mark 7:31-37
2. The blind man of Bethsaida Mark 8:22-26
Peculiar to Luke
1. Jesus passes unseen through the crowd Luke 4:28-30
2. The miraculous draught of fishes Luke 5:4-11
3. The raising of the widow's son at Nain Luke 7:11-18
4. The woman with the spirit of infirmity Luke 13:11-17
5. The man with the dropsy Luke 14:1-6
6. The ten lepers Luke 17:11-19
7. The healing of Malchus Luke 22:50, 51
Peculiar to John
1. Water made wine John 2:1-11
2. Cure of nobleman's son, Capernaum John 4:46-54
3. Impotent man at Bethsaida cured John 5:1-9
4. Man born blind cured John 9:1-7
5. Lazarus raised from the dead John 11:38-44
6. Draught of fishes John 21:1-14

Common to Matthew and Mark
1. Syrophoenician woman's daughter cured Matt 15:28 Mark 7:24
2. Four thousand fed Matt 15:32 Mark 8:1
3. Fig tree blasted Matt 21:18 Mark 11:12

Common to Matthew and Luke
1. Centurion's servant healed Matt 8:5 Luke 7:1
2. Blind and dumb demoniac cured Matt 12:22 Luke 11:14

Common to Mark and Luke
1. Demoniac cured in synagogue at Capernaum Mark 1:23 Luke 4:33

Common to Matthew, Mark and Luke
1. Peter's wife's mother cured Matt 8:14 Mark 1:30 Luke 4:38
2. The tempest stilled Matt 8:23 Mark 4:37 Luke 8:22
3. Demoniacs of Gadara cured Matt 8:28 Mark 5:1 Luke 8:26
4. Leper healed Matt 8:2 Mark 1:40 Luke 5:12
5. Jairus's daughter raised Matt 9:23 Mark 5:23 Luke 8:41
6. Woman's issue of blood cured Matt 9:20 Mark 5:25 Luke 8:43
7. Man sick of the palsy cured Matt 9:2 Mark 2:3 Luke 5:18
8. Man's withered hand cured Matt 12:10 Mark 3:1 Luke 6:6
9. A lunatic child cured Matt 17:14 Mark 9:14 Luke 9:37
10. Two blind men cured Matt 20:29 Mark 10:46 Luke 18:35

Common to Matthew, Mark and John
Jesus walks on the sea Matt 14:25 Mark 6:48 John 6:15

Common to all the evangelists
Jesus feeds 5,000 "in a desert place" Matt 14:15 Mark 6:30 Luke 9:10 John 6:1-14
In addition to the above miracles wrought by Christ, there are four miraculous events connected with his life -
1. The conception by the Holy Ghost Luke 1:35
2. The transfiguration Matt 17:1-8
3. The resurrection John 21:1-14
4. The ascension Luke 2:42-51

Miracles pertaining to the ministry of the Apostles from http://biblia.com/miracles/new.htm.
Again, I don't think this list is exhaustive because "many wonders and signs [miracles] were done by the apostles" (Acts 2:43)
· 26 miracles of the Disciples of Jesus
· By the seventy Lk.10:17-20
· By other disciples Mr.9:39; Jn.14:12
· By the apostles Act.3:6, 12, 13, 16; 4:10, 30; 9:34, 35; 16:18
· Stephen, Act.6:8
· Philip, Act.8:4-13.
· Philip carried away by the Spirit Act.8:39

9 Miracles of Peter
· Peter and John cure a lame man Act.3:2-11
·Cures all the sick Act.5:15-16
· Heals Aeneas Act.9:34
· Raises Dorcas from the dead Act.9:40
· Causes the death of Ananias and Sapphira Ac 5:5, 10
· Peter delivered from prison Act.5:19-23
· Second Peter's Miraculous Escape From Prison, Acts 12
· Visions of Peter and Cornelius, Acts 10

11 Miracles of Paul
· Paul cured of blindness, vision of Ananias Act.9:1-18
· Strikes Elymas (Bar-Jesus) with blindness Act.13:11
· Heals a cripple Act.14:10
· Throws out an evil spirit Act.16:18; ,
· Paul and Silas delivered from jail, Acts 16
· Paul cures sick people, even touching his handkerchiefs, 19:11-12; 28:8, 9
· Raises Eutychius to life Act.20:9-12
· Shakes a viper off his hand and is unharmed Act.28:5
· Paul heals the father of Publius of Dysentery, Acts 28
· Paul heals the sick of Malta, Acts 28

MIRACLES, SIGNS, etc. Part V

Authenticating a miracle. by Calorius

In an earlier post, Robbo asked the question What constitutes a miracle? I think it is necessary to consider an important and related question i.e. when is a certain occurrence miraculous? This is something that Roman Catholic Church often grapples with, and our friend Robbo being a former member of that institution can identify with what I am about to say. There are fundamental questions to be answered without which we cannot determine if miracles are indeed rare nowadays.

The way I understand it and I may be wrong, in the Catholic Church only the Pope can declare someone a saint. Before the Church can do that, however, the person must have lived at a certain level of purity, died in a certain way, and thirdly, have some miracles attributed to them.

It is like a points system so, for example, someone who is beatified by having lived a very "saintly" life and then dies as a martyr because of the faith, needs only one miracle in order to be declared a saint. Another person, who died as a righteous person but who was not martyred “because of” the faith may need two or three miracles, etc. I might add here that if we follow this system, Robbo has little chance of becoming a “saint” because he starts off with too many negative points and it is a good thing he claims he is no longer a Catholic.

When they go to make the final determination of a miracle in the case for the sainthood of someone, they have witnesses who argue that some event was a miracle and on the other side is an appointed person, the devil's advocate, advocatus diaboli in Latin, who argues that the event was not. I am informed that these sessions are very interesting.

When I lived in Baltimore, I came across the story of one Nun, who was actually one of the founders of the "Daughters of Charity" which owned my hospital. It would seem that she was generally thought of as a good person; she had provided for the poor, washed the feet of the saints, served the community greatly and all that kind of thing. She didn't quite die a martyr's death, but died in a quiet righteous way. The big issue was whether she had performed any miracles.

Years later in the early sixties a little kid developed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), at that time a fatal, untreatable disease. The kid's family went to the grotto and asked the (now dead for many decades) Nun to, you know, say a word to Jesus on their behalf. Well, this story has a happy ending. The kid gets well, grows up to be an adult, and has a family of her own, who are still around. Is this a miracle? Those in favor argued that the disease ALL was incurable and the fact that the little kid was cured was not in doubt, because she was alive.

One of hematology-oncology giants from Johns Hopkins who had personally made the diagnosis, was summoned to Rome, and gave testimony about the veracity of the diagnosis and the recovery of the patient. Then the advocatus diaboli stood up to speak and outlined his counter arguments. It turns out the kid had been given some folic acid by one of the doctors. Could it be that she really didn't have ALL but instead megaloblastic anemia? The two conditions have a similar histologic appearance. In addition, folic acid has some structural similarities with methotrexate, the chemotherapy agent. Could it have been that what they thought was folic acid was really a dose of methotrexate?

I think the case was settled in favor of it being a miracle. Sorry about the long story, but I just wanted to point out one approach to the problem regarding those miracles for which there is some element of subjectivity in interpretation. Because it's so important in Catholicism whether someone is a saint or not (their personal items can become "relics", their hometown and family can profit from pilgrimages; people can sell their image, etc) the Catholic Church has designed a formal test for miracles in this context. This helped to weed out the multiple fraudulent cases in the dark ages. As someone had said, "We have too many saints and not enough sanctity in the church"

If Benny Hinn or any other person wants me to recognize him as a miracle worker, I need to see some doctors' testimonies, before-and-after photographs, etc., and I want him to answer some "devil's advocate" type questions. I will be happy to give expert medical testimony in oncology cases. Otherwise the healings remain similar to the ones we hear about at the Tigari shrine in Larteh; curious events of doubtful veracity and questionable impact.

Yet, I myself believe in those miracles that I have encountered; although again that is based largely on my faith. In this, I am inconsistent and subjective, not scientific. Very long rambling, but all I’m trying to say is that it is not just the performance of a miracle that is based on faith; it is also the receipt of a miracle. The interpretation and attribution of a miracle is based on faith. Even if God were to part the Red Sea again today, there would be different ways of receiving it, and it would only benefit certain people, mostly people who already have faith in God. - Calorius

Related posts
Miracles and faith
The Perception of a Miracle
What is a miracle?
Where have all the miracles gone?

MIRACLES, SIGNS, etc. Part IV

Miracles and faith.

I would like to point out that some of the assumptions made by Gaius Columbus when he laid out his questions , specifically the apparent scarcity of miracles today versus their abundance in them Bible era are not entirely valid.

Firstly, the Bible is a condensation of years of ministry by individuals into a few hundred pages and at a casual glance you get the sense that Jesus, Paul, Peter and company were awash with a daily repertoire of miracles, but this is clearly not the case. The time periods between some of the chapters in the Bible involve weeks, months or years. The Bible is silent on what went on during those black out periods and you cannot assume that there were miracles going on then.

So there is a POSSIBILITY that they also had "lean" periods where there were no miracles. The Gospel is now spread out across a world of 6 billion people and not just concentrated in Jerusalem, Judea and the Roman world. We may be very oblivious of the cumulative number of miracles today and indeed there may be more miracles occurring today than there were in the Bible period.

Secondly, God clearly has the prerogative to perform the miracle and not us. We cannot hold Him to anything since it is not our power. This is where faith has to be defined very clearly. Faith is not just the fact that we pray and therefore God will answer because it is in line with our general knowledge of the Bible. Faith is a very specific standing on a promise that God reveals by His indwelling Holy Spirit to our spirits and minds by His Word. So it becomes very difficult in individual cases to know if there was a promise of healing in that specific instance that was not fulfilled. Also, there are many variables involved in the promises being fulfilled.

Sometimes we violate the physical, moral and spiritual conditions of those promises and I do not expect God to just overlook that- example when someone who has recklessly smoked all their life goes on to develop lung cancer and comes for prayer for healing I usually expect and have always seen them die subsequently. Some Christians have probably died prematurely in mission fields that they were never sent to and we may mistakenly be calling it martyrdom. Notice how Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off the temple roof by trying to convince Him it was the right spiritual move to make. I am very therefore careful in making conclusions based on an individual case

It does seem that miracles occur to confirm the Word of God and faith in it. See Matt13:58. Jesus did not do a lot of miracles in His hometown because of a lack of faith in Him. I always was taught that the folks did not have the faith to make the miracles happen, but actually the verse should be interpreted differently. Jesus DID perform some miracles; just that He did not perform many because the folks had already made up their minds to reject Him. He still had the power to perform the miracles but chose not to. This goes back to my earlier point; faith is planted well before the miracle occurs and with or without the miracle the faith remains. This is the mystery of our faith and is definitely the power of God and is a miracle in itself.

I will stop here and revisit this later after I get some other comments from you guys. Suffice to say, I still see miracles today. - Alien Warrior

Related posts
The Perception of a Miracle
What is a miracle?
Where have all the miracles gone?

MIRACLES, SIGNS, etc. Part III.

The Perception of a Miracle. by Calorius

The perception of a miracle is partly based on who the observer is. Even when a voice spoke from heaven identifying Jesus as the Son of God, some of the people who heard it said it had merely thundered. Many skeptics rationalize a genuine miracle, in the face of incontrovertible facts. On the other hand, we as Christians often commit the opposite mistake by attributing a natural event to God's miraculous intervention. This includes of the very ridiculous and easily seen-through "how God told me whom to marry" and "how God chose me for this ministry" ones.

Personally, I am quite sure of many occasions when something happened or didn't happen because I prayed. I am convinced they would not have happened except for Divine intervention, but whether I can call that a miracle or not is largely subjective and based on my faith. Some of Jesus' miracles fall into the same category, although not all. Lepers who became clean (maybe it was a temporary rash) and people who were "sick nigh unto death" and became well at the same time as a conversation with Jesus are hardly events that are beyond the possibility of chance. Peter's mother's illness could have been healed by a placebo effect; hysteria is even more powerful than the placebo effect. Then someone can ask this question; was the snake that bit Paul really poisonous, and was it really an envenomation bite?

Then, there is Gideon's fleece in the Old Testament- a good "scientific" method, but very observer dependent. He was his own observer, and it is not impossible to convince oneself that there is or there is no dew on a fleece. Temperature changes could easily cause condensation on something like that and do the opposite the next day. After all it was the same fleece, and maybe it didn't dry well and so attracted dew the next time.

What about Daniel in the lion's den? That's an example of something that still happens, like the people who walked unscathed through battlefields in war, etc. There are several of such stories from Liberia and Sierra Leone. Were the warlords just bad shots?

There is a school of Biblical interpretation which actually admits that these miraculous events did occur, but then rationalizes them. For example, people teach that the Red Sea parted because of an earthquake; and Jericho fell because of sound resonance etc. I actually find such explanations more illogical than the views of outright doubters who deny that the reported events occurred. I also have more to say on this subject and will leave it for another post. – Calorius

See also
What is a miracle?
Where have all the miracles gone?

MIRACLES, SIGNS, etc. Part II.

What is a miracle?

A long time ago, Calorius preached once at the Christian Medical Fellowship in Ghana; we never allowed him back again but he made the point accurately that when John the Baptist send emissaries to the Lord Jesus to ask if He is the Christ or should they expect another, the response from our Lord was enlightening. Jesus Christ sent a reply to this effect; the sick are being healed, the dead are being raised and the Good News is being preached to the poor. To Calorius, the order in which the miraculous phenomena are listed is important and the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of sinners is the ultimate miracle. I agree.

I am not side-stepping the question and rationalizing my inability to move even a small hill in my backyard with my faith. I believe and have said this elsewhere that miraculous healing and wondrous signs have a different purpose for the unbeliever and the believer. For the unbeliever, it is a demonstration of God’s power and to confirm the preaching of the Gospel. For the believer however, it is primarily an act of God’s mercy in this fallen world. So Paul pleaded for mercy from God for the ill Epaphras, though Paul on other occasions healed the sick and raised a dead young man. When a believer falls ill, we have to lean on God’s grace and mercy and trust Him, otherwise I would have lost my faith by now- if it were possible.

You and I know that we are experiencing God’s great mercy each day we wake up. It is a miracle that we do not rupture a small blood vessel as we sleep peacefully or engage in other activity at night, as the case may be. Every arrival back home after my daily 36 mile commute is an act of mercy that a careless or drunken driver did not take me out. Every new word that my daughter speaks and every new sentence she reads…the list is endless. The direct absence of evil or misfortune in our daily lives should not be taken for granted.

I do not have much of a problem with misfortune, illness or death of a believer; I have no difficulty praying for an ill friend/relative and I fully expect God to answer and He does answer. We can all attest to it. Sometimes He does not answer (the way we expect) and I don’t know why but I will wait till I can see completely, no longer in a mirror…..

The other part of your question is why, if what I say is right, do we not see the miraculous being performed to convince the scoffing unbeliever, i.e., as a sign of God’s power. I have some thoughts on that too and may write further about that unless one of you says it better for me. Assuming that your premise is accurate, I will just for the moment paraphrase what Jesus said in the parable: “… if they did not believe Moses and the Prophets, then they will not believe even if someone is raised from the dead and goes back to tell them…” Consider that there were people who were direct witnesses to Jesus’ miracles, including some of the Pharisees and Chief Priests and yet would not believe; some even to the extent of suggesting that He did his miracles by the power of Beelzebub!

Here then is the ultimate miracle; Christ in you, the hope of glory. - Robbo

See also Where have all the miracles gone?

MIRACLES, SIGNS, etc. Part 1.

Where have all the miracles gone? by Gaius Columbus

A few weeks ago, my Pastor died after a long illness and despite much prayer by all of us. In my initial distress, I decided to search the internet to see what has been published on the topic of miracles. I googled the words, "where have all the miracles gone”. One of the earlier hits on the list, underscoring its popularity, perhaps, was this blog posting by an atheist

Ignoring for a moment the taunting tone of that piece, does the question posed by this blogger resonate at all? It reminds me of the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, except that, this time, we Christians are the objects of the taunts. Is the core question a valid one? Remember that our Lord too was challenged to perform miracles by scoffers like the Pharisees and even by the thief crucified on the adjacent cross. While He refused to perform miracles on these occasions, there was at least the compelling testimony of His miracles performed among reliable witnesses of the same period.

You and I may rightfully say that most of the Lord's miracles were performed not for spectacle but to satisfy real human needs even though some miracles, like walking on the water, were more utilitarian in nature--the Lord needed to join the disciples, so walked on water--are harder to categorize this way. The point remains though, that miracles were performed fairly often.

In contrast, the modern era seems to be almost totally devoid of the miraculous both within the church and as a testimony to unbelievers. I am not claiming that they are not occurring in parts of the world--perhaps they are--but surely, you will agree that we are no longer seeing miracles at the same rate or of the same order of "unnaturalness" as those performed by Jesus and the Apostles? We all have our own stories of prayers uttered in faith, left unanswered? Can we honestly say that we are seeing today, miraculous intervention to the same degree as recorded by the early Church?

When does the inconvenient truth force a search for new explanations--even explanations as intellectually unsatisfying as, "we simply do not know why?" Like what some in the markets have called "almost trends", there is an "almost trend" towards a complete lack of the truly miraculous.

Increasingly, I am not sure whether I am being fully honest--both to myself and to others--when in a time of need, I urge myself or others to "have faith", to believe a miracle will occur if only I/they get down on knees, seize the promises of scripture and pray. To make such claims despite the overwhelming personal/corporate evidence of divine "silence" in recent times, at times seems self-deceiving or willfully naive. It does not square with the data at hand. Something has changed, folks--we are not now, nor have we for centuries been anything like the church of the first century. Isn't it far better to acknowledge that a "problem" exists so we can honestly start to seek answers to why our experience is at odds with the narratives that we read about in the gospels and Acts?

Now, before you send off some emotional knee-jerk response that satisfies a need to defend "the team", remember you will only be preaching to the choir. I am asking these questions very carefully. I still believe in God's grace to believers and unbelievers, but I ask that you remove your "Chrife” or conventional Christian lenses to look at this question with fresh eyes. Perhaps it might help to think about how you would answer this question if rather than a taunting skeptic, you had to grapple with an unbeliever or perhaps even a believer who was truly and honestly seeking a straight answer.

Where have all the miracles gone, and if you accept the proposition that the frequency and the "wowness" of miracles has diminished, I ask, why? And please don't side-step the issue by telling me how pondering these matters can or will make one go mad. Again, I will be satisfied with a mere, "I don't know" if that is the best (honest) answer you guys can come up with. - Gaius Columbus

Lessons from Cain and Abel. Part III

ENCOURAGEMENT IN THE MIDST OF SUFFERING. by Annang.

I agree that God was there. I also agree with the deep lessons drawn out in the previous posts, about persecution, about the typology of Abel's blood and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This story, like the Adam and Eve story, also paints another picture that may disturb some about the Character of God. The All-knowing God, who sees all things even before they happen, often seems to arrive late on the crime scene. You know, those films or stories about the gangland policeman who always appears on the scene just after the victim has been killed! In the Garden of Eden, God turned up only after the devil had succeeded in tempting Eve and Adam; here too, only after Cain had done his deed. He accused Cain of not being his brother's keeper, but why didn't He keep or defend Abel, the God-loving, God-fearing and God-devoted worshipper? Where was God indeed!

Many righteous men throughout the Bible suffered in the hands of the unjust and asked that question over and over again. Think of David in the hands of Saul, or Job in the hands of the devil. Why does our God appear to turn up late when we have been almost destroyed in the hands of unjust men?

God does know everything: He knows our suffering and our pain, and He is there, not aloof, but strengthening us as we go through the pain. Though our “blood” is shed, it is, in Paul's words, being poured as libation on the altar of His sacrifice for the Gospel. No wonder the Book of Revelation ends with similar stories of the sufferings of the saints in the hands of sinful men and women, the testimony of the saints who overcame the Evil one, not by their sword but by surrender to the will of their heavenly Father, and their Word of Testimony also speaks volumes like that of Abel.

When we read Abel's story, we should be encouraged in our little sufferings as believers that our God is there with us. And if we have not yet shed blood in our struggle over sin, let us determine to strive hard for holiness and to persevere. It is to His honor and glory that we overcome; whether it is sin in ourselves or in this world. -Annang

Lessons from Cain and Abel. Part II

GOD IS ALWAYS THERE. by Calorius.

There are a lot of spiritual truths brought out by G Columbus in yesterday's post but I still don't get it about why God didn't prevent Abel's death. There was a purpose to Jesus' death but what purpose could Abel's death have served?

Throughout this early part of Genesis, God is like an absentee farmer, like a remote landlord. He creates Adam and Eve, provides for them and instructs them, then goes away and only shows up again after they've messed up and it's time to judge and sentence them. A similar situation is seen with Cain and Abel, and a few other times in the book. It is very reminiscent of some of Jesus' parables. In the account of the history of Israel, we see clearly how they keep coming to Him and going away, back and forth, especially the book of Judges.

A more subtle theme is the ways in which God APPEARS (it's a perception only) to be close at times, then distant, then close, then distant again. There are times when He "hides His face from us", what someone has called the "my God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me" periods, but what is their purpose? I believe, of course, that all this is our perception, because God is Omnipresent and Omniscient and knows the future.

So in actual fact, God was there all the time; when Eve picked the fruit and as Cain tightened the shoe-lace around his brother's neck. However, our awareness of His presence is not there all the time, so that we have to be careful to live right, even when He seems to be gone.

I remember watching movies like "Escape from Sorbibor" and "Schindler's list" and "Roots" and thinking where was God at that time? I think the answer is, exactly where he was during Abel's murder; He was right there. When bad things happen to "good" people, it is no indication that God has abandoned them.

It reminds me of what I was once told about a sermon Paa Willie (the late William Ofori-Atta) preached from Genesis. He preached that when Cain asked "am I my brother's keeper?", it was rhetorical but if God were to answer it, one answer which is different from what we are usually taught from this passage might be to say, "No, Cain, it is I the Lord who is your brother's keeper" . Cain was being insolent, pointing out that what had happened was in part due to God's failure to protect Abel, to be Abel's keeper in the sense that we often expect. How we understand God to be our keeper is very important. It will prevent us from losing faith when certain things come our way. The prosperity doctrine people will probably cut my head off if they hear this. - Calorius

Lessons from Cain and Abel, Part I.

REDEMPTION, OBEDIENCE AND JUSTICE. By Gaius Columbus

I suggest that the story of Cain and Abel is primarily an allegory about Christ, even though there are lessons about justice to be learnt too. After the fall, man chose to manage his own affairs, including his views about morality and worship. The example of Abel, however, makes clear that, there have been in every generation a small cadre of men and women who despite their natural inclinations decide to follow God’s prescriptions to the best of their ability. Many of these people, Abel, Moses, David, Rehab, Daniel...all the way to our Lord Jesus are catalogued in Hebrews 11.

This group shared little in common with the vast majority of mankind living in their time who continued to follow their own prescriptions and inclinations; the proverbial sheep versus goat dichotomy. This is how I see the story of Cain and Abel and the interpretation I believe Paul and other New Testament writers later put on this story.

Hebrews 12: 22-24: “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

Cain knew what the right sacrifice to offer to God was, but he substituted what he considered to be a reasonable alternative. He incorrectly presupposed that God would be satisfied with his personal view of acceptable sacrifice. God in addressing Cain’s anger tells him in essence (my paraphrase), “you know what is right to do, now go do it and I will accept your sacrifice too”. God had at some point made it known what He expected in a sacrifice and Abel followed this prescription. Cain did not.Man’s prescriptions for covering his own sins, although “sensible”, are incorrect.

Man’s ideas for redemption were overruled by God, even in the Garden. When Adam and Eve sinned they clothed themselves with leaves to hide their nakedness but God seeing this, replaced their coverings with the hide of an animal killed for this purpose. This was probably the first indication of God’s preference in regard to atonement and sacrifice. Perhaps Cain and Abel knew this and it informed Abel’s choice of sacrifice.

Abel's story is the first indication we have of the stratification of mankind into righteous vs. unrighteous and this continues throughout history. We see two kinds of people: those, like Abel who take God’s prescriptions for life seriously and come to God the way He has prescribed vs. those, like Cain, who presume to know what should please God and so bring to God their own defunct ideas and reasonable-sounding precepts made by men, the false religions.

Cain, rather than change his ways, became angry and displaced his anger onto Abel. This story in Genesis is less about justice or a failure of divine protection, and much more about establishing a picture of the long struggle to come in the ages to follow between those who obey God and those who follow their own ideas. It is the story of the Jews vs. the Gentiles, John the Baptist vs. Herodias, the elect vs. the unsaved, Christ vs. the Pharisees, and Rome vs. early Christians. For friendship with God is enmity with the world.

The persecution of righteous Abel by unrighteous Cain is instruction for God-fearing men of all ages. Abel’s story foreshadowed and eventually culminated in our Lord’s struggles with the Pharisees and His eventual death at their hands. His story foreshadows the struggle between our Lord—Son of God without blemish—and the Pharisees—men who taught and followed the traditions of men. It, perhaps, even is a story of the greater spiritual struggle between Satan and God’s elect and is an example for us in the present age until the Lord returns.

I believe God was present in this story but in a completely different role from our human expectation. This role is didactic and best understood in the context of Christ’s life and mission in particular. Jesus knew the Father’s will and followed it. The Pharisees presumed to know God’s will but replaced it with the traditions of men. Like Cain’s sacrifice, the self-styled morality of the Pharisees, like other self-styled religions through the ages, was rejected by the Father. Jesus, by the attestation of miracles and wonders and by His death and resurrection had His sacrifice and His life validated by the Father. Like Cain, the Pharisees plotted to kill him and did. To us, it appears that God abandoned Abel to the evil plans of an unrighteous man and similarly, we see Jesus apparently abandoned by God to the evil intents of unrighteous men; "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me”

It is true that other parts of Scripture portray God to be our protector, which He is. Here, however, I believe the intent of this story is to set a precedent or expectation of what is to happen later with our Savior and with those who choose to follow Him. For the righteous in the ages to come, it is the first example of what to expect as a consequence of the decision to follow Christ: derision, persecution, ridicule, harm, even death. – G Columbus

CAIN and ABEL, some questions.

WHERE IS GOD WHEN THE RIGHTEOUS ARE IN HARM’S WAY?

In further study of the early part of the Book of Genesis I have some questions.

Where was God when Abel was being slain? I can't imagine that Abel, who had just established communion with God, would not cry out to God for help as his brother was squeezing the life-blood out of him. Where was God’s protection?

I have reflected on these questions myself but I would like to hear what others think. Any answers? - Calorius

Genesis 3, another recap.

The key motifs of choice, consequence and grace that we see in the preceding several posts permeate scripture. Grace, in one sense, is God’s continued involvement in our lives despite our conscious choice to go our way—to direct our own lives. It is His refusal to abandon us—at least for a season (a “very long” season if you ask me)—even when we choose to abandon His prescribed bath. It is His willingness to accept us when we turn from our ways. This, for me, is the story of the garden. It is also the story of the Prodigal son. It is the story of the wealthy young man and Jesus, whom the Bible says Jesus continued to love even though his choice was for self-determination rather than submission.

This feature of God’s nature—His obstinate love for His creation during this long epoch of grace (God will not strive with man forever), never ceases to amaze, humble and move me. Perhaps, He loves creatures as unworthy of this love as you and I because he knows our nature, and perhaps it is because, like Jesus said, we do not fully comprehend what we do. I don’t know. I just know I am grateful for this all-encompassing love that seeks me out even when I turn my back. Wouldn’t it be great if we loved each other that way, loved our spouses and our kids and co-workers that way?

The trees in the garden, in one sense, can be seen as metaphors for choice; choice for Life lived in subjugation to God, or Death from a life lived for self. Seen this way, the serpent merely brought to a head what man had probably been pondering a while—the opportunity to run his own affairs. It is indeed strange that after the act of disobedience, Adam and Eve did not immediately grab hold of the Tree of life. This suggests to me that perhaps the choice was never theirs to make (since God immediately forbade it). From a practical standpoint, then, it seems their choice of one path precluded the other. I say this because it is implausible to me that God would have left the tree of knowledge in the garden even if man had wisely chosen to eat first from the tree of life. Why, because the end result would have been the same. The two choices, therefore, and irrespective of the order in which they occurred must have been mutually exclusive.

The garden, then, is to me a metaphor for the continuing basic choice all men through the ages and today are asked to make—a life of trust in God, and His wisdom, love and goodness versus a life of trust in our own abilities and discernment. Proverbs 3:5-6 makes this case clearly. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths. The key word is trust.

I see now that true Wisdom is not to be found in the fact that we see the “sense” in or the reasons for a particular instruction given by God. Rather it is to be found in the fact that we see the “sense” in following the Giver of those instructions—even when the instruction itself appears “nonsensical” to us. Wisdom is not a discernment of the reason for a rule but instead a mental attitude, a moral inclination, a conscious choice to order one’s life from a position of fundamental trust in God’s will and love and wisdom. The fear (reverence for) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

God does not call us to be zombies, but rather men and women who having weighed the evidence of His character, have chosen to trust Him in all of our affairs, rather than to rely on ourselves. This is what compels us to obey even when God’s instructions do not make sense to us and to follow even when our intellects scream a different path. I believe this is one of the lessons to learn when we read that Jesus said “my food (perhaps even an allusion to the tree can be found here) is to do the Father’s will”. I believe, He is saying, at least in part, that true life is to be found only in a life lived according to God’s guidance. For this reason, He has chosen to subjugate His own understanding to the Father’s. This is the true meaning of obedience and the reason why it is those that do the will of the Father who will enter the Kingdom. Incidentally, brothers, this is a key reason, why we as Father-types need to be trustworthy when it comes to our kids; we are their first image of what our heavenly Father is like.

Finally, Jesus as a human must have inherited Adam’s propensity to think. If so, it is probable that His intellect would have suggested paths different from what the Father had chosen for Him. Jesus was no “zombie”. His free choice is evident when we recall His prayer in the garden. The words that He spoke during that anguished hour prior to His arrest and torture are especially telling. He said in essence, I would like to be spared what is to come (indeed my whole human experience—a fear of pain and separation from you—demand that I take a different course), but not as I will but as You will. His every human instinct must have screamed the ensuing events were not going to be pleasant—far from it—yet He knew His Father’s heart and intellect were unmatched. Yes, God is good and wise, so He trusted.

Trust is not blind; it is based on evidence—even if that evidence is one that is not directly experiential but instead impressed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. To obey we need to ask the Holy Spirit to convince us deep in our own spirits and in our minds, that our God is good, wanting the best for us. That best is only to be found in submission to His expressed will for our lives even if we don’t always fully understand it.

Today, as through the ages, we are faced with this fundamental choice; to eat from the tree of our intellects and emotions or to eat from the tree of obedience—the one that implores us to subjugate our thoughts, emotions, and wills to that of our all wise and all loving Father. “For it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in and through me”, is a paraphrase of how Paul puts these truths. We do well to do the same. - G Columbus

Genesis 3, recap

I have a few more reflections on the Genesis 3. I think we suffer a little from the translation of words like "tree of knowledge". In our mind that implies a tree whose fruit would provide knowledge, and after all, why not? Knowledge is good. But it seems to me you could have called the tree anything at all, the major point being, as G. Columbus has suggested in his posts, that it was a prohibited tree, whereas the tree of life represented the prescribed tree. So Adam and Eve were perhaps as guilty for eating of the bad tree as they were for not eating the good one.

The two trees in the garden seem to represent choices that God gave Adam, similar to choices that He gave Israel through Moses, and then through Joshua, Samuel, etc. These are the same choices that John the Baptist indicated, and which Jesus preached "come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden...." and the same invitation that the Spirit and the Bride continue to issue. Every time we hear an invitation to respond to God, we are essentially being given a choice between the "tree of life" and the tree of knowledge- you could call the latter the "tree of death", as in the tree which eating it leads to death.

I see the contrasting choices as follows; the prescribed (tree of life; living water; bread of life; blood of Christ; eternal life) versus the proscribed, (tree of knowledge; guilt; death), the preferred versus the prohibited, the proffered versus the protected, the provided versus the prevented, the pull towards Him versus the push away from Him.

Now it was the serpent that drew Eve's attention to the tree of death, and sowed the doubt, but in Adam's part of the temptation the serpent doesn't even appear to have been there. Nor when Cain slew Abel, which is perhaps the next major sin recorded in that time frame. Perhaps, mere speculation here, even without the serpent, Adam or Eve would have wondered there and have to confront the same questions eventually. It seems to me that the role of the serpent in this play was as a spoiler of God's paradise, in the same way that he tempted Judas.

So yes, the serpent is the devil, Satan, the great tempter, but our own responsibility is tremendous. "Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by HIS OWN lusts, and lusts, when they have matured, ....bring death" How similar is that to Eve's own "and when she saw that the tree was delightful, attractive, and that eating it would give her something God had withheld (translated knowledge)...she took of the fruit, and ate."

To summarize, I agree that the devil is the one who brings temptation, especially when it involves deception (he is a good liar). But our moral responsibility is still 100%, because we are still the ones who make the choice between the prescribed and the proscribed. We have to remember there are some sins, (and they are among the worst, where there is no overt satanic deception involved; i.e., sins in which the perpetrator is very much aware of what they are doing and its consequences, but chooses to do them.

Incidentally, one take on why the word "knowledge" as applied to the tree could mean knowledge in the bad sense, is the way in which the desire for knowledge represents a decision for self determination. The "give me a conscience and I will decide in myself how to live". I think that is why statements like "each man did what was right in his own eyes" are really describing sinful states. I believe that is why Paul says that with knowledge (of the law) came consciousness of sin. It is not that when know the Ten Commandments then we become sinners, but rather the state in which he tried to know the Law and then decide things for himself was a sinful state.

One more thing, in popular drama, good and bad are presented like opposing FORCES. A good power and a bad power and that is the way Hollywood sees it in that genre of movies from the old Dracula series, the Exorcist, the Omen, and Matrix; even to some extent in the Lord of the Rings. However the real moral battle is not one of good force against bad; there is no comparison there, because God is infinitely more powerful than Satan, but rather between good choice and bad choice. I think the one story that comes closest to getting it is the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. I meant this to be very short but I got carried away. - Calorius

Another look at Genesis 3. Part III

In my previous post , I tried to make the case that rather than being a bait intended to snare man, the fact that the two trees were planted so prominently in the center of the garden suggests that they represented a moral choice Adam and Eve were to make at some point during their stay in the garden. A snare would not be so prominently displayed, I think, but more importantly we know from the book of James that God does not tempt us to sin.

I have suggested that the course of events recorded in the passage indicates strongly that while both trees were originally accessible to man, once a choice was made for one this was no longer so. I believe, therefore, that if man had made the choice to eat from the tree of life, God would most assuredly have restricted access to the tree of knowledge. God’s governance versus self-governance was what was being presented as man’s chief moral choice in the garden. Man could not have both eternal life and the right to manage his own affairs separate from God’s oversight. God would not permit a created being to have all knowledge, absolute dominion over his own realm and eternal life to boot. This, I have suggested, would essentially have made man a God-type or “mini god”. Chapter 3 v 22 appears to indicate this.

So given this stark choice and man’s unfortunate decision, what was man to expect? We all know how we treat our friends, family, kids etc when they willfully ignore good counsel. If God was a man, I would have expected Him to wash His hands off man completely—to leave him to his own machinations and to the natural consequences of his choice. After all, Adam had been warned and had spurned God’s warning.

Many interpret God’s pronouncements at this point in this manner. But might not the consequences have been a lot worse if God had really left man to face the full consequences of his disobedience? Remember, man by choosing the tree of knowledge had effectively declared his intent to manage his own affairs. Up to this point and as long as Adam and Eve worked under the divine governance, God had significantly lightened their work of caring for their dominion. One example can be found in the provision made for the watering of the Garden of Eden, which I believe was the first automatic irrigation system. A complete abandonment of man to his chosen path could have been a lot worse.

I see therefore, even in the pronouncements made after man’s fall, an inkling of God’s grace. God did allow the natural consequences of sin to play out, but perhaps in a lighter form than what might have been. An obvious example of such muted punishment is the fact that God’s presence remained both with Adam and Eve in the garden and as chapters 4 shows also to their children. We see other indications of the Father’s love in this very moment of man’s fall when we see God fashioning a covering for man from an animal—an animal that had to lose its life—as a first example of the salvation that was to follow much later in Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. This picture already sets in motion God’s plan for salvation and we begin to see all the processes that would eventually lead to the death of His son as a covering for our sin. What a great God we serve. He continues to extend that grace to all today.

The whole issue of free choice with muted consequence seems to permeate the Bible. At many points throughout Scripture, we see grace where punishment is expected. One day though, the Bible teaches that God’s full undiluted anger will be poured out. Till then we are charged with the task of spreading the good news of His mercy—a God, who from the beginning of time, has never wished that any should perish but that all will see the light, choose life with Him over death through self-governance. I am awed and overwhelmed by His great love for us manifested throughout Scripture.

I will leave things here but implore someone else to engage this topic. There appears to be a lot in these verses worthy of further study. For example there is the issue of nakedness. What does it mean in these passages; merely physical nakedness or something deeper? Prior to the fall, were Adam and Eve oblivious to their nakedness because they were clothed with God’s righteousness? Did they become aware of their nakedness when they lost this covering? Are sin and death the nakedness we feel when we live outside His government—a desire to hide away from God rather than to come into His presence with boldness? Is this one of the chief blessings purchased for us by Christ’s death on the cross—the provision of a garment of righteousness to cover the nakedness of our sin? God bless. – Gaius Columbus

Another look at Genesis 3. Part II

In the first part , I wanted to dispel the notion of the restriction regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil —by itself— being the source of sin. I suggested that the incitement to disobedience only arose when the Serpent was injected into the equation. I argued that the presence of the tree and the command pertaining to it should not be seen as bait. Even further, the perception of this tree as bait becomes less valid when we consider the fact that there were two special trees planted in the garden. There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but there was also the tree of Life.

Interestingly it appears that both trees were planted in the center of the garden. They took center place and appear to have been the focal point of the garden. I would argue that this is so because they represent a choice that Adam and Eve faced right from the start. These trees merely represent a choice man was to make at some point, a choice he was constantly aware of but which came to a head when the serpent initiated that pivotal discussion.

Let us remember that Adam and Even had been made in the image of God. In what way was this true? Well, chapter 1 v 26 suggests that this related to man’s dominion over all of God’s creation. Man was master over his realm. I think the trees represented a moral choice man was to make. He could choose to remain under God’s authority and to receive the gift of eternal life—i.e. choose eternal life under God’s jurisdiction or choose to go his own way, guided by his intellect and his own judgment of right and wrong but in doing so forfeit eternal life.

In Genesis Chapter 3 v 22, after the fall, God makes this statement. “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (NIV) Hence, contrary to popular notion, man was not eternal at his creation. It suggests that he was to die at some point.

These choices between life and death appear to have been mutually exclusive. We know that to choose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the tree of death) was to reject the tree of life because when man chose this path, the tree of life was then made inaccessible to him. I want to suggest to you that if man had instead chosen to eat from the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would immediately have become inaccessible to him. If man had chosen eternal life, I see no reason why God would have left the tree of knowledge in the garden, leaving open the possibility of the one thing He (God) most wanted to avoid—the confluence of domination, eternal life and knowledge.

In other words, what was not allowed was for man to have domination over God’s creation, eternal life and all knowledge, making him more or less another God. Although not explicitly mentioned, it seems logical and strongly suggested in Genesis 3 v 22 that if man acquired all three attributes—dominion over God’s creation, eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil—he would in essence become divine (even if merely a more limited kind of divinity).

So man had to choose between 2 positions: He could choose to be like God in his authority and in his possession of eternal life but remain subordinate to God in restrictions relating to knowledge and decision-making. Or he could retain his authority and choose to go his own way. If he did the latter, though, he forfeited his right to eternal life. God will not countenance another divine being besides himself. And as long as man had not made or had the opportunity to exercise this choice, both trees remained in the garden. Once he chose one tree, however, the other was removed. Seen this way, then, the tree of knowledge is not bait but represents a choice that man was called to make.

So, in summary, with respect to the two trees, I see them not as bait but as a choice that all human beings are still required to make today. A choice between Life under God’s government but with eternal life to boot or life (actually death) under our own government, forfeiting the gift of eternal life—which I interpret to be a life of continued uninterrupted communion with Him. Man in choosing one rejected the other and the death that was promised was immediate even though he continued to live physically. This suggests that the death being mentioned here is not a physical death and I will expand on this theme in my next post.

Incidentally, this choice between life and death is a pattern repeated over and over in the scriptures. It is reminiscent of old and new testament scriptures which implore man to choose between life—going it God’s way—and choosing death—choosing our own way. The two are mutually exclusive.

Finally, all of this forms a prototype that culminates in the choice all are asked to make in respect to our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord’s mission and ministry, is to restore all things to the right order; God over all, man with eternal life and dominion over God’s creation, but only in accordance to God’s written prescriptions. It is what we are called to do even as we wait for the Day of His coming. Die to self and to surrender our lives to his government. - Gaius Columbus

ORIGIN OF SIN. Genesis Chapter 3

I have been reflecting and trying to analyze what exactly happened in the Garden of Eden in an attempt to better understand the genesis of sin. I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Why did God have to put a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in the garden? Was He not baiting man? What did God mean when He said Adam would die if he ate the fruit? In that context what is death and what is life?

Reading through the Genesis 3 narrative, I see that physical death was a punishment for Adams disobedience and not the consequence God referred to when He warned Adam about eating the fruit. Indeed, Adam did not physically die for another 900 years plus after that episode and I am assuming that Adam’s life span was calculated from the time of the fall when the death sentence he was given. Another question therefore comes up; are the consequences and punishments for sin the same or different?

Another striking thing to me is that there was no remorse from Adam or Eve after their sins were uncovered. Did that have any effect on Gods judgment? I compare that with the reactions of David and Saul after they were both confronted with their sins. The former’s repentance was immediate and unconditional; the latter was sullen and defiant and the punishments were very different.

In the aftermath of the fall in the Garden of Eden, the discourse between God, the man, the woman and the serpent also requires some reflection. God speaks first and gives the man and the woman a chance to speak. The serpent is given no chance to speak and is immediately punished. Very starkly, the serpent or Satan is cursed by God but no curse is laid directly on mankind. Rather in Vs 17 the ground, and I take that to mean the Earth, is cursed because of mankind’s sin. Is there some principle here to be learnt about how God deals with sin and who can be forgiven? Why does Satan never get a chance to redeem himself but man does despite our defiance in the Garden and all the evil we still do?

Leading on from the above, who really goes to Hell? Is it just anyone who has not accepted Jesus or is it those who have rejected Him? I think these are two very different positions. You cannot reject what you have not been given a chance to accept. I am not saying everyone will go to heaven and no one will go to hell but is there some bigger aspect of the plan of salvation that we are not yet privy to?

I do have some thoughts and comments on the questions I want I would like to have some input from somewhere, particularly my brothers on this blog, before I continue. - AL.