Blunder after blunder

Art/design or theology/philosophy? Two different worlds with two different directions. Just finished my first Old Testament module exam and I think I blew it. Am I really made for this? What is ‘calling’ exactly? Am I really ‘called’ into this? How come I was so sure of what God wants me to do back then but now when I’m in it (and in my first blunder) my vision is blurred? Probably Pastor Ronald is right, it’s my first exam and I’ll sooner or later get the hang of it… I hope so too. But I'm think I’m just so lost now for now. Probably it’s back to art for the time being. I don’t know anymore.

“Lord, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. Server any ties but the ties that bind me to your service and to your heart.” – David Livingstone

One hundred percent

There are some thing that just wouldn't do without the hundred percent, one of them is obedience. Its opposite is disobedience and disobedience is actually pride. Whatever percentage of our life that is not subjected to God is our percentage of pride. “Pride comes before a fall” ever thought how that phrase come about? As I study 1 Samuel, time and time again I am reminded about the consequence of not obeying. Intentional disobedience before God comes before a fall.

For the past few days the word obedience kept hitting me again and again like a ton of bricks. So what does it really means? What does 100% really means? In class we were asked that question and the lecturer demanded practical answers. I still remember some of it: One says that if you are a missionary or if you know you are called to be one, you will jolly well take your kids out of the Singapore education system. And for many times you may not even get to see your kids very often. Another gives the scenario of dropping your studies and do the things that you are told to or called to. Delayed obedience is disobedience and is pride.

Of all the practical examples, one principle in lies in common and it is the same way as God tested Abraham with the offering of his son, Isaac, who is his one son of which, his ‘world’ kind of revolves around. Let’s look at Apostle Peter, Jesus also asked him a defining question as recorded in John 21:15 “do you love me more then these?” Now Jesus is referring to the fishes that he just caught and thus Jesus is comparing Peter’s love for Him to Peter’s love for fishing. The same can be said about us. Are we willing to give up the important things that we hold on to so tightly and swap them with Jesus? Do we love Jesus more then ‘these’?

I know what it means, I know what I’m called to and I struggle with the thought of it. So for me, to acknowledge them is really very painful. I may be obeying but it is still very painful to see the things that I want so much float away. Its like when you realized that you can't have both worlds at the same time, it becomes like a so-near-yet-so-far kind of thing. Am I actually willing to give up my personal desires for the greater desire of God? What does it really means to take up my cross daily and follow Jesus? Without obedience, faith holds no ground.

God from the Hebrew perspective

We know that the OT books were written in Hebrew and NT in Greek. The 4 Gospels are by basically recordings of Jesus' life and Jesus is a Hebrew, his words and teachings are mostly directed to the Hebrews. This makes the 4 Gospels very ‘Hebrew’ although written in Greek. Basically the Hebrews are circular in their thinking and Greeks, liner. We as Western Singaporeans are more to the Greek side. I have a more artistic mind and less of the logical hence tend to be more circular then liner. Probably this is the reason as to why I have no problem understanding OT theology and the 4 Gospels but struggle intensively when it comes to grasping the precepts of the NT books as most of them were written by Paul directed at the Greek/Roman world.

For the Greeks, every concept introduced needs to be backed with some sort of explanation (liner) but for the Hebrews not everything needs to be explained, but you need to note the author’s main point of the story. For the Hebrews, concepts are more fluid, more ‘out of the box’ whereas the Greeks like everything to be packaged ‘in a box’. So therefore when we read or study Hebrew text, if we read God with a Greek mindset, we are totally missing the author’s point and therefore, taking the text out of the context, misinterpreting what it was meant to be interpreted.
-
Let us now look at God in relation to evil as portrayed in the OT, with our minds tuned to the Hebrew mindset.

Surprisingly the word ‘Satan’ is used only 13 times in the whole OT. (and it bears no connotations with luck mind you!) It’s a Hebrew word which literally means ‘the accuser’ or ‘the adversary’. Meaning ‘The one who is against’. Yet the reason the word "Satan" is mentioned 13 times and 12 of it, in the book of Job (in conversations between God and Satan) is because in much of the OT, Yahweh is seen as the cause of evil as much as good.

There are many examples to show that this was no problem in the earlier period. Take Amos 3:6 for example. And in exodus we see Yahweh hardening the heart of pharaoh. In 1Samuel 1:3-8 we see Yahweh is the one that brings about the barrenness of Hannah. Here again and again we see Yahweh does both good and bad things. This God of seemingly ‘double standards’ persists even into the NT period until the time of clement of Rome in the 2nd century AD who says: "God has a right hand and a left hand and both of them bring about his will." In other words he is saying one bringing Good and the other bringing evil. Modern theologians (who are liner thinkers), as we know have trouble with talk like that.

So I being liner, tried to figure God out and I figured that God did not create evil but God created a definition of good that seems to include evil. Evil gains its definition from good and so does good gains its definition from evil. God is surely tolerating evil and it appears that beyond tolerating, God is even making use of it to define what is good and perfect. To the Hebrews, God is unquestionably sovereign. There was no concept of doubt in the Hebrew mindset. When there is a problem, their solution is worship. To them, it is all about Yahweh and his sovereignty. When there is no doubt, it tells Yahweh that He is sovereign. Probably that is the reason why the prophet Habakkuk starts his 3 chaptered book ‘singing the song of the atheist’, dealing with the problem of evil, but ended his book with worship. And with worship comes renewed strength.

To the Hebrews, Yahweh is the God with the power of reconciling opposites. Yahweh is the one who causes barrenness to bear ‘fruit’. Yahweh is the one who lead the oppressed into victory. Yahweh is the one who make the weak nation a conquering nation provided they pledge their allegiance to him. For examples see Abraham and Sarah, see the childless and therefore oppressed and despised Hannah, see the Israelites in their debilitated form devoid of iron weaponry technology against the ‘powerful’ Philistines as portrayed in 1Samuel. The only ‘weapon’ they had was Yahweh and surprisingly, they had victory every time except the times they disobeyed Yahweh. Hence the definition of Yahweh by Paul, as in Romans 4:17, “the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.” This is the foundational image of God for the Hebrews in the OT as well as for the Christians in both Paul and Jesus’ time. This is precisely the reason as to why G.K. Chesterton in his essay, ‘Introduction to the Book of Job’, writes that “The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.”

This does not mean throwing logic out of the window either. I figured that general logic could best be divided into 3 categories, besides the logical and the illogical categories; there is a third, which is the ‘beyond’. Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom. It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love. It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience. Such are then placed in the third category. The Hebrews in their ‘simple’ mindset understood this. And beyond understanding, they arranged their life around their fundamental belief and hence it became culturally embedded.

I guess Rev.Houger said it right when he said “We think too much like the Greeks, we need to think more like the Hebrews.” If we want to understand God the way He was understood by the Hebrews, we better think and understand God and do apologetics in context. I guess this is what faith is all about - Understanding something of greater value through the initial lack of understanding.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

Abide with me

You know like how we always pray for power to do all things? I came to realize that instead, I was given weakness of such titanic proportions so that I might feel the need of God. And now I really need God! Humility is really painful. The Chinese is really killing me. But there’s one thing that I can be assured of. Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength, they will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. God's power is best expressed through my weakness. In my weakness, He is strong.

Only God alone knows how to humble a man without humiliating him and only God alone knows how to lift up a man without flattering him. What a mighty God we serve!

---
Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide!
When other helpers fail, and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day;
Earth's joys grow dim; its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see;
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.

- Some verses from hymn "Abide with me" by Henry F. Lyte