high.expressions (a Christian site)

.

2022-06-22T06:52:00.000-07:00

Anthony Chia's Healing Meetings

(next meeting: 04 Feb 2012 - click for details)

Blessed Lunar New Year to all my Chinese readers - Anthony Chia - 18.01.12

Listing of all blog entries (click on them to read)

LATEST 2 ARTICLES___________________________WORDS FOR ALL SEASONS (click ME)

Do I have to forgive (another man)? Part I
Carolyn Quek has passed on, too (31 Dec 2011)

FULL LISTING
What is high.expressions all about
Were Mary Magdalene and Mary Bethany the same person?
Liz has passed on (6th Oct 2011)
Carolyn Quek has passed on, too (31 Dec 2011)
Initial Return to Zion
Who killed Goliath?
No one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit
Spiritual food

Against questionable teachings
7. Secret of Obed Edom, faulty premise more likely
6. If Stars are stars, and sand is sand, the tree of good and evil is no tithe! {Can, meh?}
5. Stars are stars, sand is sand {be careful when we teach & preach}
4. Please, 1 John 3:9 does not mean a believer cannot (unable to) sin!
3. Lordship
3(i). Luke 6:46 - Part I - Salvation and Lordship are together (You cannot ignore Lordship)
3(ii). Luke 6:46 - Part II - As Christians we are to obey His commands (His Lordship demands obedience)
2. Ye are NOT gods (Overly grace believers claiming we are gods)
1. 1 John 1:9 is for believers (A MUST READ article)

Salvation,Gospel
10. Sinner's Prayer - Sample
9. Works of redemption by Our Lord
8. Animals do not go to Heaven
7. Correct understanding of salvation, and relationships between salvation, grace, faith, and good works
6(i). Luke 6:46 - Part I - Salvation and Lordship are together
6(ii). Luke 6:46 - Part II - As Christians we are to obey His commands
5. Psalm 16 - King David's profession of faith
4. 1 John 1:9 is for believers.
3. What about propitiation, forgiveness, and appropriation?
2. No one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit
1. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me(John 12:32)

About God
9. We are without excuse
8. He is NOT just Father
7. Did God create evil?
6. About God's compassion (Ps 145:9 and Rom 9:15-16)
5. Why I think Isaiah 53 was about Jesus
4. God is gender-neutral, He is spirit
3. The Lord as papa eagle - a vision of faithfulness, comfort and assurance
2. Who are the Three Vistors/Men? (Gen 18:1-23)
1. God also exercises faith!

- Holy Spirit
Adoption Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

About Man
5. God knows man through his spirit, and God knows me through His Spirit
4. They call it the view of Hell
3. Ye are NOT gods
2. The Fall of Man (3-part article)
Part I - The Need for understanding of the topic, background, and the fall
Part II - The Consequences of The Fall
Part III - Controversial issues of The Fall

1. Man is body, soul and spirit (Tripartite Man)

Holiness series
7. You must choose to cleanse yourself from ignoble
6. Peter's call to holiness
5. 1 John 1:9 is for believers.
4. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-15) note the kind of shrewdness
3. Do you know why Moses did not enter the Promised Land?
2. Be holy because I am holy
1. Way of Holiness - The Way of the Lord

Righteousness series
2. Do I have to forgive (another man)? Part I
1. Anyone in OT ever righteous since Jesus was not yet manifest then?

Christian Living
35. Do I have to forgive (another man)? Part I
34. Don't be a fool, wise up, ...
33. 7 things we can learn from Nehemiah's Prayer
32. Matt 22:36-39 - No oxymoron here, but the very essence of love
31. He is NOT just Father
30. Good works explained (Part I)
29. Good works explained (Part II)
28. The potter and the clay - His sovereignty (many read this!)
27. You must choose to cleanse yourself from ignoble
26. It is a tug of war
25. Works of redemption by Our Lord
24. Grace of God means this, too!
23. Psalm 143 - David's refusal to despair
22. Did God say we are not to judge?
21. Psalm 34 - I will teach you the fear of the LORD
20. To enter into the kingdom, we need to be like little children
19. Psalm 62 - God and only God matters
18. Who are the sheep, and who are the goats (Recommended reading)
17. Hold on, for the grace of God
16. Peter's call to holiness
15. 1 John 1:9 is for believers (A MUST READ article)
14. Durian or papaya?
13. Modus Operandi of Satan
12. Seeking the face of God when one is afflicted by wicked people - Psalm 9
11. Don't play, play, words from the mouths of favored men of God can be powerful
10. God also exercises faith!
9. About being delivered – Psalm 116
8. About wickedness, sin, and righteousness, and the consequences, in a nutshell – Psalm 1
7. The Lord as papa eagle - a vision of faithfulness, comfort and assurance
6. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-15)
5. I can do all things through him [Jesus Christ] who gives me strength (Phil 4:13)
4. Reserve glory and worship for God, practise honor, and grow in favor with God
3. Psalm 42 - What to do when discouraged
2. Trials and temptations (James 1:2-18)
1. More of 'O' less of 'I'

Christian Service
20. Characteristics of a called minister
19. Matt 22:36-39 - No oxymoron here, but the very essence of love
18. You need faith, and you need love
17. Why do you NOT want to pray for the sick?
16. Good works explained (Part I)
15. Good works explained (Part II)
14. The potter and the clay - His sovereignty
13. You must choose to cleanse yourself from ignoble
12. Works of redemption by Our Lord
11. Psalm 66 - Intercede, but cherish not sin in your heart
10. Psalm 62 - God and only God matters
9. Who are the sheep, and who are the goats
8. Basics of Divine Healing
7. It may be wrong to say that God's spiritual gifts are irrevocable
6. Twice Paul was warned, yet he still went to Jerusalem (Recommended for those who move in prophecy and words of knowledge)
5. Don't play, play, words from the mouths of favored men of God can be powerful
4. God also exercises faith!
3. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-15)
2. Reserve glory and worship for God, practise honor, and grow in favor with God
1. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me(John 12:32)

Jesus' Teachings on Prayers (Luke 11:1-13)
3. Jesus' teachings on prayers (Luke 11:1-13)[Part I]
2. Jesus' teachings on prayers (Luke 11:1-13)[Part II]
1. Jesus' teachings on prayers (Luke 11:1-13)[Part III]

About Divine Healing
8. Do I have to forgive (another man)? Part I
7. It is God CAN heal and God DOES heal (Part I)
6. It is God CAN heal and God DOES heal (Part II)
5. People are NOT healed all the time, why we still pray
4. Why do you NOT want to pray for the sick?
3. Sickness, good? Nay
2. Sickness and God
1. Basics of Divine Healing

Concerning my little "ministry"
15 You need faith, and you need love
14iiHide NOT under filthy rags - Part II
14i Hide NOT under filthy rags - Part I
13. Lord, what are you saying in these?
12. Keeping Christmas (Put here, for I believe, this is part of that little ministry)
11. If I have not love, I am nothing
10. It is so good to hear that people have been healed
9. Intercede for others - and you'll be blessed too!
8. More variations have come
7. The Lord as papa eagle - a vision of faithfulness, comfort and assurance
6. Another testimony of God's healing for me
5. I too must testify to the goodness of God
4. Thank you Lord, for the affirmation again
3. Thank you Lord. You are still affirming
2. More Lord, more
1. A Special Resurrection Sunday indeed

Judges series
Click here for full listing

Psalms expositions
Click here for full listing

An associated blog site (Say It Like This) - shorter articles
4. Don't be a fool, wise up, ...
3. Characteristics of a called minister
2. Restedness does NOT mean no work
1. Ye are being legalistic if ye say there should be no laws whatsoever

.
.

Judges series

2022-06-16T00:58:00.000-07:00

Listing of articles (by Anthony Chia). Please click at individual article to read.
To return to main blog page, click here.

1. Judges series - Judges 1 (background to series)
2. Judges series - Judges 2 (Israelites broke Covenant with God)
3. Judges series - Judges 3 (3 minor judges)
4. Judges series - Judges 4 (on Deborah, battles against Jabin & his men)
5. Judges series - Judges 5 (Song of Deborah)
6. Judges series - Judges 6 (on Gideon, on being called)
7. Judges series - Judges 7 (on Gideon, battle against Midianites)
8. Judges series - Judges 8 (on Gideon, the 2 last kings,etc and life's brief)
8a. Judges series - Recap of all points learnt from story of Gideon (recap of all points learnt)
9. Judges series - Judges 9 (Abimelech, a king who was not)
10. Judges series - Judges 10 (on Tola, Jair, and return to great evil, again)
11. Judges series - Judges 11 (on Jephthah, a not so glorifying judge?)
12. Judges series - Judges 12 (focus still on Jephthah)
13. Judges series - Judges 13 (birth of Samson)
14. Judges series - Judges 14 (Samson's marriage)
15. Judges series - Judges 15 (on Samson, vengence on the Philistines)
16. Judges series - Judges 16 (on Samson, presumptuousness kills)
16a. Judges series - Samson as type to Jesus (also, on Samson's riddle)
17. Judges series - Judges 17 (Micah, his mother & Levite)
18. Judges series - Judges 18 (State of disregard, of things of the LORD)
19. Judges series - Judges 19 (A Levite and his concubine) (this 3-part articles get hits!)
20. Judges series - Judges 20 (A Levite and his concubine [continuation])
21. Judges series - Judges 21 (A Levite and his concubine [final part])

Anthony Chia

Words for all seasons

2022-06-15T18:25:00.000-07:00

“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. - (Eze 3:20) dd: 19/01/2012

To go back to blog main page, click here.

Previous words:
--------------------
“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. - (Eze 3:20) dd: 19/01/2012.

^"23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror ²⁴ and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. ²⁵ But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does." - (James 1:23-25) dd 15/11/2011

"The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, but the LORD tests the heart. ” - (Prov 17:3) dd: 09/11/2011

"He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God” - (Romans 14:6) dd: 11/10/2011 - in remembrance of Liz Mah

"{God} Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” - (Acts 4:30 - prayer of believing Jews) dd: 15/09/2011

"Fruit-bearing is not servile work; but easy, natural, blessed.” - (F.B. Meyer) dd: 17/08/2011

"Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise;
give thanks to him and praise his name.
For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.” - (Ps 100:4-5) dd: 01/08/2011

"With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” - (Isaiah 26:9, KJV) dd: 28/07/2011

"We must be careful to do our part with reverence and godly fear, remembering that God must work in realms we cannot touch, and to issues we cannot reach, before our poor exertions can avail.” - (F.B. Meyer) dd: 07/07/2011

"You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.” - (James 2:22) dd: 16/06/2011

"1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” - (1 Tim 2:1-4) dd: 01/06/2011

"24The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden.” - (1 Tim 5:24-25) dd: 20/05/2011

"Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest. Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.” - (Jer 5:24-25, KJV) dd: 12/05/2011

"{The LORD is He} who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be inhabited,’ of the towns of Judah, ‘They shall be built,’ and of their ruins, ‘I will restore them,’” - (Isaiah 44:26 {words in curly brackets mine}) dd: 28/04/2011

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” - (1 Cor 1:18) dd: 21/04/2011

"As long as we palliate and excuse our sins, and, dream that there is much in us which is noble and lovely, we are not fit subjects for God's sawing grace. But when we take our place as helpless and undone, without one plea or one redeeming trait, we are in the position in which the free grace of God can have its blessed way with us.” - (F.B. Meyer) dd: 14/04/2011

"UNTIL WE ALL REACH unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God AND BECOME MATURE, ATTAINING TO THE WHOLE MEASURE OF THE FULLNESS OF CHRIST.” - (Eph 4:13, capitalization mine, point to emphasize, we have NOT arrived on born-again) dd: 31/03/2011

““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” - (Matt 7:21) dd: 17/03/2011

“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” - (1 John 3:7 {KJV}) dd: 24/02/2011

“Whoever claims to live in him {Jesus} must walk as Jesus did.” - (1 John 2:6) dd: 11/02/2011

“As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he[the Lord] who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."” - (1 Pet 1:14-16) dd: 01/02/2011

“When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” - (Eze 33:18 KJV) dd: 26/01/2011

“To know God, and to be known by Him, is to possess all things. All that is lovely, strong, or right, in any human being was in the Creator before it entered the creature; having God, you possess all things in Him.” - (F.B. Meyer) dd: 19/01/2011

“Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right.” - (Proverbs 16:8) dd: 11/01/2011

“because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” - (Exodus 22:27) dd: 05/01/2011

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” - (2 Tim 4:3-4) dd: 29/12/2010

“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” - (1 Peter 3:12) dd: 21/12/2010

“If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.” - (1 Cor 3:17) dd: 06/12/2010

“Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find?” - (Prov 20:6) dd: 29/11/2010

“The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread” - (Isaiah 8:13) dd: 22/11/2010

“A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of things that he possesseth; but in his purity, truth, tenderness, and the properties of his soul. The fruit of the Spirit must ever be manifest in the life of the believer "Love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance."” - (F.B. Meyer) dd: 18/11/2010

“For I am the LORD, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you.” - (Isaiah 41:13) dd: 09/11/2010

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”- (Phil 2:12) dd: 25/10/2010

“The progress of evil within us is a matter of unconsciousness, largely because we are quick to discover reasons to justify our decadence. We gloze over the real state of affairs. We call sins by other names. We insist on considerations which in our eyes appear to justify our conduct.”- (F.B. Myer) dd: 19/10/2010

“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”- (Matt 7:21) dd: 04/10/2010

“The LORD detests the thoughts of the wicked, but those of the pure are pleasing to him.”- (Proverbs 15:26) dd: 27/09/2010

“Beware of taking on the color of the ground on which you lie.”- F.B. Meyer dd: 21/09/2010

“Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”- (Luke 3:8) dd: 31/08/2010

“Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”- (2 Cor 7:1) dd: 24/08/2010

“If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.”- (1 Cor 3:17) dd: 16/08/2010

“Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”- (John 14:6) dd: 11/08/2010

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”- (2 Tim 3:16) dd: 31/07/2010

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”- (1 Cor 1:18) {emphasis, mine} dd: 21/07/2010

“In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”- (Heb 12:4) dd: 24/06/2010

“It is better, if it is in God’s will, to suffer for doing good, than for doing evil.”- (1 Peter 3:17) dd: 14/06/2010

Not clever-ness, but cleanliness, is the prime condition of service. Jesus will not put throne-water into impure and polluted receptacles.- (F.B. Meyer) dd: 07/06/2010

But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.- (Matthew 6:20-21) dd: 26/05/2010

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right {in doing good}, you are blessed.- (1 Peter 3:13-14a) dd: 18/05/2010

Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse.- (Proverbs 28:6) dd: 10/05/2010

But your hearts must be fully committed to the LORD our God, to live by his decrees and obey his commands, as at this time.- (1 Kings 8:61) dd: 03/05/2010

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world - (James 1:27) dd: 27/04/2010

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? {think about it} - [in curly bracket, my suggestion to you](James 2:14) dd: 15/03/2010

Anyone who serves Christ in righteousness, and with the peace and joy of the Holy Spirit, is pleasing to God, and approved by men- (paraphrased from Romans 14:18) dd 08/03/2010

When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. - (James 4:3) dd: 01/03/2010

The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread,
and {yet} he will be a sanctuary;- Isaiah 8:13-14a (curly brackets mine) dd: 18/02/2010

if we are faithless {believe not}, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.- 2 Timothy 1:13 (curly brackets mine) => God is reliable and faithful. Even as God is love, He is also faithfulness - one of the trustworthy sayings of the Apostle Paul dd: 05/02/2010

You do not need to shine all the time before men, let others shine too, and you will shine even brighter before the Lord.- Anthony Chia, revelation believed confirmed from Judges 8:1-3 dd: 25/01/2010

At the base of it all, love is a choice.- Anthony Chia, revelation believed confirmed from Romans 8:20-21 dd: 18/01/2010

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. - Romans 8:28 dd: 11/01/2010

he who wins souls is wise - Proverbs 11:30b dd: 31/12/2009
.
.
.

Psalms expositions

2022-06-12T18:33:00.000-07:00

Listing of articles (by Anthony Chia). Please click at individual article to read.
To return to main blog page, click here.

Psalm 1 - About wickedness, sin, and righteousness, and the consequences, in a nutshell
Psalm 9 - Seeking the face of God when one is afflicted by wicked people
Psalm 16 - King David's profession of faith
Psalm 34 - I will teach you the fear of the LORD
Psalm 82 - It is not ye are gods, but a prophecy of the Ruler and Judge
Psalm 42 - What to do when discouraged
Psalm 116 - About being delivered
Psalm 62 - God and only God matters
Psalm 66 - Intercede, but cherish not sin in your heart
Psalm 143 - David's refusal to despair

Anthony Chia

Do I have to forgive (another man)? PART I

2012-01-18T02:06:00.000-08:00

Preamble: Before I talked more, I want to say that some of the points here are NOT in agreement with the understanding of the “overly grace” believers who hold onto the theology that they are forgiven AT their born-again, of all their sins, past, current and FUTURE.

In this part I, we will cover a few key points in this very important subject of the need for us, a believer, to forgive another. I feel it is easier to give understanding on this topic, through point by point form; the layout of this article is in this manner.

Point No 1 – We have to forgive because we have unmerited forgiveness from God (unmerited, meaning, out of grace).

Point No 2 – We have to forgive as God forgave us.

The support for these 2 points come from Col 3:13 and Eph 4:32:

Col 3:13 – “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

Eph 4:32 – “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

1) because we have received forgiveness from God, we are to forgive. When we received God’s forgiveness, we received it, out of grace (we did NOT merit it), as such, in gratefulness, subsequently we should be forgiving towards others; and

2) in the manner we received, we give, or freely we received, freely we give (Matt 10:8b). In other words, we are to release forgiveness also out of grace, without the counterparty meriting it.

3) It is clear, the 2 verses are talking about the manner in which we are to forgive, and NOT timing; the use of “as” for timing, would be like “AS I pass out” these song sheets to you; you “pass them on”, but in this case, it was wasn't used this way.

Point No 3 – forgiving is practising love

Prov 17:9 – NIV84 - “He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.” NLT2007 – “Love prospers when a fault is forgiven, but dwelling on it separates close friends.” God’s Word Translation – 1995 – “Whoever forgives an offense seeks love, but whoever keeps bringing up the issue separates the closest of friends.”

I like the interpretation of “covers over” as “forgive”, as in the NLT & GWT.

When God forgave us, God was promoting love. Likewise, when we forgive, we are promoting love or practising love. Love prospers when forgiveness is rendered. As a Christian, do we have to put love into practise? Yes, we must; and forgiving is a very important way.

Is it NOT true, if we kept on, the bringing up of a wrong, it will separate the closest of friends? Yes; and so, when we forgive another over a matter, don’t keep bringing it up with the person, to put the person down.

Before I go on to point No 4, let me repeat the 1st 3 points:

1) We have to forgive because we have received unmerited forgiveness from God.

2) We have to forgive as God forgave us, or we have to forgive in similar fashion/manner as God forgave us.

3) We have to forgive because to forgive is to practise/promote love.

The next point is one that is very important, and is where “overly grace” preachers would definitely NOT agree with us.

Point No 4 – forgive, for we need on-going forgiveness from God

I will express here, the “overly grace” preachers do NOT believe a believer needs to get on-going forgiveness from God; their theology is that a believer needs only be forgiven once, i.e. AT his born-again, for all his sins, past, current, AND FUTURE. According to them, a Christian should NEVER ask for forgiveness from God again!

If you are like me, unlike the “overly grace” believers, we are to believe in our need for on-going forgiveness from God; and we forgive, for we need on-going forgiveness from God.

The supporting texts are these: Matt 6:14-15, Mark 11:25 and Luke 6:37

Matt 6:14-15 – “14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” {Note the future tense used, “will not”}

Mark 11:25 – “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

Luke 6:37 – ““Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

It is obvious that believers are being referred to, here. Don’t you agree!

If, as the “overly grace” preachers have taught, believers need only to be forgiven once, for all his sins, including future ones, AT his born-again, these verses are WRONG to suggest God will be forgiving believers subsequent to their entry into salvation.

If you are like me, believe the verses are NOT WRONG, but the “overly grace” preachers erred, and that we need to receive forgiveness of God from time to time, even as a believer, because we do sin (from time to time), we need to forgive others; for if we don’t, God will also NOT forgive us.

My purpose here is NOT to refute the claims of the “overly grace” believers, but I must state an important point on this subject of forgiving another, and that is, I repeat, “we forgive, FOR we need on-going forgiveness from God.”

Point No 5 – we are to forgive, forgive, and forgive.

Scripture texts:

Matt 18:21-22 – “21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” (NIV84)

Luke 17:4-5 – 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” 5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” “

Do these verses support the notion that if one (ok, a brother) sins against you 7 times a day, for 11 days {7x11=77 times}, and on the 12th day, you don’t need to forgive him?

The answer is “No”, I believe such were a manner of speaking in that time and culture, meant to say there is no limit to the number of times. 7 was thought to be already the perfect threshold, and Jesus was saying one had to go beyond that, “go perfect, perfect” or “7,7” NOT just “7”.

It was how superlatives were expressed, like when, “Verily”, was used twice as “Verily, verily” or in the extreme superlative, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty” (“Holy”, repeated 3 times, to express extreme superlative).

Or alternatively, if you read verse 22 of Matt 18, as, “70 x 7” times (as in the NIV footnote), similarly, “1 x 7” is already considered “perfect”, there is the “7 x 7” (or 49 – the Hebrew’s jubilee), and “70 x 7” (or 490, the grand jubilee); essentially, what was intentioned, was to indicate to go, to the maximum no. of times imaginable.

What are we supposed to do? Forgive, forgive and forgive.

Point No 6 – we forgive, regardless

This is an extremely important point, and supports come from these sets of verses: Col 3:13, Mark 11:25 & Luke 17:4-5

Col 3:13 said, “Whatever grievances”, forgive. Mark 11:25 said, if you hold anything, anything at all, against anyone, forgive him. This includes all cases where you have grounds to be “unforgiving”; you have to forgive, regardless, so that God may forgive you your sins.

Luke 17:4-5 is saying the same: Just imagine, a brother wrongs you, one time, and says, “I am sorry”, and you forgive him; he repeats that, and you forgive him, and then he repeats it again, and again, for another 5 times, all in the same day, and on the 7th time, you are still to forgive him when he has said, “I am sorry” or “I repent”.

If you ask me, if a brother has wronged me 3 times in a day, I will be quite dull, to NOT realize, that brother is lacking sincerity. What this tells me is that, Jesus was deliberate in saying what He had said, which was in substance, this: “If the offender comes claiming he knows he was wrong, and now seeks forgiveness, even at face value, you just accept it, and release your forgiveness to the person.”

The exclamation of the disciples (“Increase our faith!”) was recorded to emphasise the need for us to forgive, regardless; despite we have NOT seen better or higher gauge of repentance than a mere claim, “I repent”.

Let me now take the time to explain the concept of forgiving and releasing forgiveness. Firstly, there is our forgiveness in the heart for the offender, and then there is the releasing of forgiveness to the offender. We must first forgive the offender in our heart, regardless; then we release our forgiveness to the person. In other words, before we could release forgiveness to the offender, we must have forgiven the person in our heart first. That forgiveness from the heart, in the heart, is to done, regardless, without condition attached – forgive, regardless. So, despite the Luke passage was more on releasing our forgiveness to the offender, it implicitly included forgiving.

Point No 7 – in forgiveness, we are to be our brother’s keeper

The Scripture text is this:

Luke 17:3-5 – “3 So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” 5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” “

If our brother sins, we are to rebuke him. We are to stress to him what he did is wrong; and this is line with our responsibility for our brother (we are our brother’s keeper!). In other words, the Luke’s account was also incorporating the teaching of how to function as a brother’s keeper in rendering forgiveness.

In living out our Christian lives, we are always to be aware, we are our brother’s keeper, and a key aspect of that role is to avoid stumbling, confusing or misrepresenting to our brother. So, even in matter of rendering forgiveness, we are here being taught, how NOT to stumble a brother. Only when he claims repentance and seeks forgiveness, which is PRIMA FACIE that he understands he has done wrong and wants to turn from it, do we RELEASE forgiveness to him.

Please NOTE that I have said, “Release forgiveness to him, and NOT forgive him”. We have to forgive the offender in our heart, regardless, and then in discharging our brother’s keeper’s role, we release our forgiveness on prima facie repentance. Prima facie simply means “as it seems, without investigation”.

By verse 3 of Luke 17, I believe Jesus was intentioned to stress 2 things:

1) we have a certain responsibility towards our brother, so that “his blood is NOT on us”; and

2) we are to forgive the brother for the wrong he had done to us.

The “repent” bit was only to indicate when to release your forgiveness to the person, NOT so much as to be a condition for forgiveness; that was why Jesus had to follow it with verse 4, to explain what He meant by “repent” that He had just mentioned.

As a timing or sequence of events, it is this: a brother sins, we tell him, that is wrong (we rebuke, in other words), and then at his claiming of repentance and seeking of forgiveness (“I repent” was to indicate this), we are to release our forgiveness to him. This was what Jesus meant when He said, if that brother sins against you 7 times in a day(!) and comes back to you, every time (!!), saying, “I repent”, you are to forgive him!!!

The text should NOT be interpreted as requiring “truly repented” as a condition for forgiveness. As I have said before, just imagine, a brother wrongs you, one time, and says, “I am sorry” (and you forgive him); he repeats that, and you forgive him, and then he repeats it again, and again, for another 5 times, and on the 7th time, you are still to forgive him when he has said, “I am sorry” or “I repent”.

As I have said earlier, Jesus was believed to be saying, “If the offender comes claiming he knows he was wrong, and now seeks forgiveness, even at face value (prima facie), you just accept it, and release your forgiveness to him.”

Jesus was intentioned more, to explain how you are to discharge your responsibility towards a “failed” brother rather than on stating there is a proviso, for forgiveness. If we remove the “repent” (its more exact meaning, as explained in verse 4) from verse 3, it would then appeared that Jesus would be instructing us to rebuke the person who has done wrong and then, on finishing the rebuke, tell the person he is forgiven – what kind of message would that be, would it NOT, be confusing to the person who sinned? Yes, it would, to say the least; it might even suggest to him as being quite alright to commit the wrong/sin in question!

Point No 8 – If there is prima facie repentance, and forgiveness is sought, you are to release it

We are still looking at the same Scripture text of Luke 17:3-5.

It is because the way Jesus explained the “repent” of verse 3, in verse 4, that made the disciples said, “Increase our faith!” Why?

Because first, Jesus required us to be our brother’s keeper, to tell the person he is wrong, then even when there is no repentance according to our “stricter gauge standard”, we are to release our forgiveness to the person as long as there is prima facie repentance (the person claims repentance, and seeks forgiveness, that will do). Isn’t that hard, and that was what the exclamation was about!

Had Jesus said, for example, “When he truly repented, you forgive him”, the disciples would NOT have said, “Increase our faith!” as an indication of it being a hard thing, Jesus was asking them to do. You see, the minimum test of “truly repented” would be the “test of time”. Given reasonable time, if the brother does NOT repeat his error, we may at least, have a degree of comfort that he has indeed repented, but that was NOT what Jesus indicated (Jesus deliberately used “7 times in a DAY”; there is no test of time).

Neither did Jesus suggest some other form of actions, like restitution (in situation where it is possible), or paid the “damages” to you, or paid the fines, or surrendered to the police. If one of those was suggested, perhaps, it would have been easier for the disciples to “stomach” it; but Jesus did NOT. Jesus said you just take it, when the person says he repents, which is basically means “he claims he repents”; and he wants your forgiveness, you are to give it!

Jesus was NOT intentioned, in these verses, to lay down a proviso we are to demand, before we forgive. Don’t quote this verse, Luke 17:3, to support our own purported understanding of requiring a “failed” brother to have “truly repented” before we forgive. We forgive …….what? Regardless. We release forgiveness on … what? Prima facie repentance.

Point No 9 – Despite we are to forgive regardless {point no 6}”, and “to release forgiveness on prima facie repentance (NOT to insist on “truly repented”) {point no 8}”, we are to repent in asking for forgiveness.

I felt it is necessary to insert this point, in case, people go away with wrong idea that we do NOT need to repent when asking for forgiveness from God, or from each other.

Despite the above exposition, on Luke 17:3-5, the text does NOT suggest, the “failed” brother need NOT truly repent of his sins. The text is addressed to the one offended, how he was to forgive and to perform his role as his brother’s keeper.

There is a very valid guide for receiving in of truths from the Word, and it is called, “Please read your own email, and NOT that addressed to another”. Here, God tells you, the offended one, what you are to do; you don’t ignore that; instead, go read the email to the offender, in which God tells him what he must do.

I repeat: “The verses do NOT suggest, the “failed” brother needs NOT truly repent of his sins”. Let me explain:

Be the first one to throw a stone at me, if you honestly was NEVER, as a believer, ever, intentioned to repent before the Lord, and then went on to commit sin again.

Do you think God did NOT forgive you on those occasions? Or that God waited until you truly repented before He forgave you? When you purportedly said that you would NOT sin again, when can God truly be sure that you would NEVER sin again? Can you tell me, for sure, when? Most of us, can’t, right!

At the same time, it is NOT God is saying you are NOT to truly repent of your sins; in fact we are, to truly repent of our sins. And so, it all comes back to the same thing said earlier, concerning Col 3:13: “we forgive in the same manner God forgives”. God forgives us at our expression of repentance, and so must we forgive another, that way; although in both cases, it is NOT that we are NOT required to truly repent. Let me explain further:

Forgiveness is expression of love, and practising forgiveness is practising love, we have seen that, above (Prov 17:9 / point No 3). Yet, because ultimately, God can only love us unto righteousness (‘ahab love), God does desire that we repent from our sinful ways.

In the same way, we love with the love of God, our brothers; and we, therefore, must love our brothers, unto righteousness, desiring him to repent; but just as God forgives out of grace, we, too, are to forgive out of grace. Just as God would release His forgiveness to us at our expression of repentance, so must we do the same – release forgiveness to another at his expression of repentance (“I repent”).

When it is out of grace, it means the person receiving it, has NOT merited it. So, really, you cannot be attaching conditions to your forgiving another, like he must truly repented first, done this and done that, or suffered this first, and that, too, before you forgive. If your mindset is that way, when the offender does NOT satisfy any of the conditions, you will be reluctant to forgive, and that goes against the wish of God, which is that we forgive, regardless.

Because God’s love for us, ultimately is love unto righteousness; we must repent; and we love our fellow brother with the love of God, we too, love him unto righteousness, and so rightly, we desire his repentance, and he should repent. So, you see, in our asking for forgiveness we are to repent.

God’s email to the offender would have read along the lines that I have just given (he should repent), yet you, the offended one, still should just go to the instruction God has given you, “Release forgiveness to the offender on prima facie repentance, just as He (God) also does, when you ask for forgiveness”.

So, please do NOT go round quoting me saying that, in asking for forgiveness, we do NOT need to repent; you have to (repent).

Many misinterpret Luke 17:3-5
Because many misinterpret Luke 17:3-5, so before I end, I repeat: It is NOT right to interpret the Luke passage to say, the Word of God said, we are to forgive another, only when that person has truly repented, excusing ourselves to harbor unforgiveness against that person. The correct rendering is, we are to forgive (from our heart, and in our heart), regardless; it is that we may hold back the release of our forgiveness, in our proper discharge of our role as our brother’s keeper. But when there is prima facie repentance, you are to release your forgiveness to him; any reluctance on your part goes only to show you have NOT forgiven the person, in your heart, in the first place; and that is NOT right.

If you ask: Can I release forgiveness to the offender without him asking for forgiveness? Yes, so long as you are still properly discharging your “brother’s keeper’s role”. Sometimes, our relation with some people is such that we know, there is already prima facie repentance on the part of the person, even without him claiming it and seeking forgiveness; in such a case, it is NOT wrong to release the forgiveness to the person (legalism is to be avoided).

Anthony Chia, high.expressions

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Carolyn Quek has passed on, too (31 Dec 2011)

2012-01-08T22:25:00.000-08:00

Less than 3 months ago, I wrote an entry on Liz Mah’s passing on {Liz has passed on (6 Oct 2011)}; this time, I am putting up this entry for Carolyn Quek’s passing on. It is NOT my intention nor do I want to, make it a ritual to do this, putting up articles on people who passed on; but because Carolyn Quek, Liz Mah and I, had been engineered by God (I believe) to cross path, and be “intertwined” for a time longer than days or weeks, I feel it proper to put up an article for Carolyn, as I did, for Liz.

If you read the entry on Liz (the link given above), you will know that, despite Liz was resided in another country, Malaysia, I came to know her, in 2009, without meeting her; through her blogging. A year later, some time, towards the end of 2010, Liz had wanted to come to Singapore, where I am residing, for a short holiday, over a weekend. I emailed her on the possibility of dropping by at my church so that I could pray for her, in person. I emailed her the map and direction to come to my church, but I had NOT, her telephone number. That weekend, I waited in church over 3 services, over Saturday and Sunday, but Liz, her husband (Henry) and their 2 sons, did not turn up at the church. The surprising bit was this:

A lady, with her husband, and 2 boys were in one of the services, and they were seated right behind me. I was seated in the 1st row of the pews, and these folks, as visitors, surprisingly sat right behind me, in the 2nd row (many people do NOT like sitting so near to the front). At the end of the service, as the congregation was leaving, the 2 boys took turn to ask me questions, one each, tough questions, I remember; questions that most Christians do NOT ask. Because of the depth of the questions, I tried NOT to give “simplistic” answers. When I have finished answering the boys, the mother of the kids said that the reason the kids were asking those “tough” questions was because she was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. When I heard that, it was like a light bulb suddenly lighted up, as I thought about the similarity - the 4 persons, a mother with her husband, and their 2 boys (although {later I learned} Carolyn had 2 other sons, {much much older}, but were NOT at the church). You see, I was expecting Liz Mah who was also diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer (her case, she was diagnosed in 2009), coming with her husband and their 2 boys. So, I believe in place of Liz and her party of 4, God has engineered Carolyn Quek and her party of 4 to come, instead. This was how, back in 2010, I first met Carolyn. I subsequently explained to Carolyn about Liz Mah of Malaysia, and connected the two. Carolyn followed Liz’s journey even as she travelled hers. Liz, as I have said in my entry (link given in the first para.), was really steadfast in holding onto the faith and trusting God, and it was reflected in her entries in her blog, which Carolyn, in Singapore, followed. Liz Mah was an encourager for Carolyn. This was evidence that Liz, in her own affliction, she had encouraged, and aided another in the same tough journey of life.

Recently, when Carolyn was first hospitalized, because the cancer had spread from her lungs to her brain, I visited her. Her husband, Anson, told me that, because of the widespread cancer growths pressing on her brain cells and taking up spaces in the skull, Carolyn suffered loss of memory, and she could NOT recognize or remember many people. She could only remember and recognise a handful of people. Anson said she was able to remember me, and indeed, she could, when I was there in the hospital. It seemed somehow, when Carolyn could only have a few names she could keep in memory, she was able to select those dear to her, her immediate family members, one or two church people (I am greatly honored she had kept me in), and Liz Mah, even though Liz had passed on! Anson told me, she remembered Liz, and kept talking about her. Carolyn was much older than Liz, but she took Liz as her model (because Liz’s longsuffering, perseverance and faithfulness), and she did lament that Liz had to go (passed on) so young.

Now, Carolyn has joined Liz in Heaven; yes, my faith tells me both of them enter Heaven, to be with their Lord.

Actually, both women, Liz Mah and Carolyn Quek exhibited longsuffering, perseverance, and faithfulness; they remained steadfast unto the Lord even though their days were numbered. The examples of Liz Mah, you can read from the entry I made on her, given at the beginning of this article.

Carolyn, too, was steadfast; her husband, Anson, who was NOT a believer before the discovery of her cancer affliction, was touched by her steadfastness, and opened himself to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and received Jesus into his life. Anson told me that Carolyn then made use of the time she had left, and reached out to her maternal family side, and members there received Jesus, too. Anson, when I talked with him, and in one visit at the hospital when I asked him to lead in prayer for Carolyn, I realized, for a young Christian, Anson sure understood things well, and prayed well; Carolyn had continued to encourage him to continue to attend classes at church, even when she could not go with him (because of her hospitalization).

Carolyn continued also to further her own understanding of the faith, and would go to church services, and attend classes, as far as possible. I remember Anson said, she would insist on sitting just behind me, a couple of rows behind, and I often prayed for her in church. Carolyn would ask me things of the faith she did NOT understand well. For short answers, I would answer her in church; for longer ones, we would exchange emails. From the emails, and through the questions she asked, I learnt too, that, during this time, Carolyn was also teaching her kids about the faith.

Just as in the case of Liz, in their final days, it was difficult for them to be coherent; Liz’s husband, Henry, said so, from reading the uncompleted last blog entry that Liz was doing; and for Carolyn, the cancer growth in her head reduced her to be like a small child. So, when asked, what they (Anson, and the children) should do for Carolyn, I thought about how steadfast both women were, and I felt that helping Carolyn to stay steadfast unto the Lord, was the best thing to do, and so, I agreed that praying by her bedside, reading Scriptures to her, and letting her hear Christian songs through headsets (in hospital), were the best things to do for her, to help her to “stay in the Lord”. I visited Carolyn at the hospital for the last time on Christmas morning; and on New Year Eve, she passed on.

Even in their cancer afflictions, both women, Liz and Carolyn were beautiful in my eyes, despite their then physical state; in them I saw the longsuffering, the perseverance, and the faithfulness and steadfastness unto the Lord. No matter what they have failed in the past, in their final lap, they possessed the important attributes of a man or woman of faith, finishing their races with thumb-up.

Carolyn has now joined Liz. These words I uttered in my heart, “Sisters, be at the Heaven’s Gate to welcome me when I come.”

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, you know that in Carolyn’s last days, it was difficult for me to pray with her and her loved ones, for I had encouraged them to be positive to continue to live life. Yet, I still went, be there, in their difficult moments of life. I thank you that you have seen me through those times that I thought it would be awkward to face the sick and their loved ones when the inevitable was coming for the sick, for I had been praying with them for healing. I will continue to pray and minister to the sick, only I ask of your grace for me to know how to carry myself in such inevitable scenarios, where the sick would pass on, Lord. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

7 things we can learn from Nehemiah’s Prayer

2011-11-14T22:29:00.000-08:00

In the study of Old Testament (OT), even as we are to understand the history and stories of the times, at the end of the day, where possible, we should address its application in our present day life. If we do NOT do that, then reading of OT accounts of events may appeal to us only like fictional stories, to be read like a fictional novel; surely the OT is more than that.

Since the church (the church I attend), has just completed a study of the Book of Nehemiah, I thought, apart from what was gleaned from those preachings from the pulpit, I would like to, at least, put up an application article on the Book, by just looking at the Prayer of Nehemiah in Nehemiah 1. Earlier, towards the end of September 2011, I wrote an article on “The Initial Return to Zion”, at the start of the church’s study of Nehemiah. That article served to clear up some of the confusions over the 2 major books (Ezra and Nehemiah) on the subject of initial return to Zion. You may like to read it, if you intend to do a detailed study of these 2 books. Although the series by the church provided great scholarly insights into the meanings and symbolisms of things in the Book (and I appreciate that, my pastor), there was clearly a lack of addressing the application of what we learnt there. I can only say time always limits what we can cover. But I really would like to, as I have indicated in my article on The Initial Return To Zion, encourage people to read with the intent to apply. This article gives us a simple illustration of reading with intent to apply.

Nehemiah’s Prayer
Nehemiah was told that those who survived the Babylonian exile were in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and its gates had been burned with fire. He sat down and wept when he heard those things; for some days he mourned and fasted and prayed before God. Below is his prayer (Neh 1:5-11):

5 Then I said: “O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father’s house, have committed against you. 7 We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses.
8 “Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, 9 but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.’
10 “They are your servants and your people, whom you redeemed by your great strength and your mighty hand. 11 O Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of this your servant and to the prayer of your servants who delight in revering your name. Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of this man.” I was cupbearer to the king (Neh 1:5-11).

Here I give 7 things we can learn from the prayer of Nehemiah:

1. That God is great and awesome (v5). Nehemiah declared it: that God is great and awesome. Our God is the God of the Heaven, great and awesome. How great and awesome is our God? There are so many aspects to greatness and awesomeness of God; and we can preach sermons after sermons on this subject. But the one aspect that Nehemiah expressed in that one verse is the awesomeness of the all omnipotent God keeping covenant with men. Such is the awesomeness of God that despite we can do nothing to Him, He still cares to keep His promises to us! (Perhaps, one day, I will put up an entry on the greatness and awesomeness of God).

2. That God keeps covenant with those who love Him and obey His commands (v5). Our God is a covenant-keeping God, yet it is NOT a case of God will stick to the covenant no matter what. Nehemiah’s understanding was that God keeps covenant with those who love Him and obey Him. So, the parts that God is supposed to do in a covenant are for those who love Him and obey Him. Are you loving God? Are you obeying God? One angle we should be looking at, before we ask, “How come I do NOT get this or that from God, said of, in the covenant?” is whether we are indeed, loving our God and are obeying Him. If you neither love Him nor obey Him, can you still get from God? Sure, but it is by His grace, and if it is by grace, it is up to God whether or NOT He would give it; it would NOT be He is obligated to give, as in a covenant or contract. If you think it is wrong to even think of God ever NOT keeping His part of the covenant, God did that before, but NOT until the counterparty, the people of God, Israelites, first broke covenant with Him. God broke the covenant (“The Promised Land Covenant”) which He made with the Israelites before they entered the Promised Land, because the Israelites broke the covenant first (Judges 2:1-3 {If you want a full exposition of Judges 2, read this: Judges 2}).

3. That God wants us to confess our sins (v6-7). That was what Nehemiah did, before he put before God, his supplications. We ought to follow Nehemiah’s example, always confess our sins, before we even petition for God’s working on our behalf. Those who teach that 1 John 1:9 is NOT for believers ARE WRONG. (You may want to read this article of mine {1 John 1:9 is for believers}, if you are inclined to believe believers do NOT need to confess their sins after the one time confession, at born-again).

4. That God would remember His words (v8). In our prayers, we refer to the Word, refer to words we have received from God; God will remember them and will honor them. Nehemiah called to God to remember.

5. That God is a forgiving God, that if we would return to Him and obey Him, He would once again move to restore us (v9). I want to stress here that we need to return and obey.

6. That God would give ear to the prayer of all those who delight in revering His name (v10-11). You, do NOT think God “shama” (H8085) you, or (less accurately) “listening” to you? One angle to look at is, “Are you revering His name in delight?” Or are you just begrudgingly honoring His name?

7. That God would like us to talk to Him first before we act (v11). That was what Nehemiah did: He was intentioned to talk to the King about the plight of the remnants and the city of Jerusalem, but he talked to God first about his intention. It is involving God in our affairs, and NOT we just do our thing, and when we get into trouble, we run to God for help, NOT that we should NOT do that, run to God for help, if we indeed, get into trouble (for it is better to get help from God still – late better than NOT!). But it is honoring God to talk to Him first, before we proceed.

You see, regardless, you are going or NOT going to rebuild the wall of the city or your church, your family, etc, you can take in the above 7 important understandings, and apply them in your life.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, may you impress upon your teachers and preachers, that a way to pass down the legacy and heritage of our faith is to pass on the understanding to read with the intent to apply. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Matt 22:36-39 - No oxymoron here, but the very essence of love

2011-11-08T20:07:00.000-08:00

Article text: Matt 22:36-39 -

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Where got room anymore
There are people who have problem with this Matthew passage (Matt 22:36-39): They say it is oxymoron or self-contradictory! The argument is that we are called to love God with all of us, with all of our heart, all of our soul and our mind, and then we are told to also love our neighbors; “where got room anymore!” Since all is used up in loving God, can there be any room left for anything, including loving our neighbors?

His righteousness
Call Him a jealous God, call Him a demanding God or call Him a “all or nothing” God, the point is that He is God and is a holy God; and principally, His wisdom and His holiness, working together give rise to His righteousness. Everyone just needs to conform to this righteousness, which is coming from the nature attributes of God. God is like that, it is Him; He has no choice, for He is governed by who He is. And we have no choice, for we are His Creation. No one creates something to irk himself! If what is created irks him, does he NOT have every right to destroy it or re-create it? Shall the clay talk back to the Potter or man, to God? (Romans 9:19-21 – The Potter and the clay {Many people read this article of mine, if you have the time, read it; it's about the sovereignty of God}).

Only one knows it fully!
Scripture talked about who knows the mind of God; and it is the Spirit of God who knows the mind of God. Can the Spirit be at odd with God? Never! For the Spirit is always right on, with God. For the Spirit knows what is on God’s mind, what He is thinking, wanting, desiring, and what He wants to do, and when He wants to do a thing. In other words, the Spirit is always right with God, and what is right, is about “what is right in God’s eyes”, and NOT in any other. The “rightnesses” of God is His righteousness.

The Holy Spirit is always righteous, for He is always right with God, or we say He is in sync with the righteousness of God. Even Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit that way: Jesus said that when He (Jesus) was gone (back to Heaven), the Holy Spirit would be sent, He (the Holy Spirit) would NOT speak or do anything of His own, but only that which He gets from God (which incl. Jesus Himself). You may say, “This is well and good, but what does it got to do with love, and the Matthew passage?” It is because it has everything to do with God and with love; wisdom, holiness, and consequently, righteousness, are everything to God, and are everything to matter of love or God’s love.

God only move in righteousness, including in loving Man (`ahab love)
Because of God’s holiness, God can only move in righteousness! His wisdom enables Him to do that. There is no other way; Scripture said God is holy, and in Him there is no darkness at all. There is no evil or wickedness in God. God just cannot move in any wickedness; He only moves in righteousness, and, and this is an important truth and revelation, it is that ultimately, God can only love Man unto righteousness (`ahab love). Look up this “`ahab love”, I did NOT make up this `ahab love, you can check it out in the Strong’s Lexicon; it is just that so many people just preached about agape love, a dimension of God’s love revealed more fully in the New Testament. People had side-stepped that which was already revealed in the Old Testament about the love of God, and that it was a love unto righteousness, even as it was an unconditional love.

Agape needs to be expanded
The word, “agape” came from the Greek language, the language of the New Testament Scriptures. The Greek understanding however was NOT adequate, for their love language, so to speak, had no idea of loving unto righteousness, but “agape” is the closest love word to use (there are a few Greek love words). To me, if we do NOT want to use the Hebrew phrase of ‘ahab love, then agape love should be redefined to include love unto righteousness. Now, it should make more sense! Let me explain further below.

We too, must love Him back according to His righteousness
Now, God can only move in righteousness, and so also, God can only love men unto righteousness. Just as the Spirit can never be at odd with God, the only way men can be NOT at odd with God is for men to “read the mind of God”! Of course, men cannot read the mind of God like the Holy Spirit. But the idea is still that men are to be righteous, which ultimately is about being right on, with God, fully agreeing with what is on God’s mind (How can men know what is on God’s mind or what God considers as right? Through the Word and through the Holy Spirit). In order to be in harmony with God, we must be moving also in the ways of God. What is God’s ways? Righteous ways, according to His righteousness. So, when we love, we must also love righteously, for God loves us unto righteousness. So, we have established that when we love God, we are to love Him, righteously. Yah, what does it got to do with the “all” as in with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind?

There is no room for any other righteousness
The “all” is to denote the requirement to love God according to His righteousness; for that is the only way we can be in harmony with God; that is the only way it is acceptable to God, for He is a holy and righteous God. The “all” is to emphasize that there is no room for righteousness according to any other, NOT that of other deities, men or ourselves; only to be filled and governed by the righteousness of God. Of course, we should be clear that the fallen men have no acceptable standard of righteousness as far as the strict holiness of God demands (although in Old Testament times, I believe God did prescribe highest achievable standards (temporal), instead of The Standard); Scriptures put it that all have fallen short. Matthew 22:37 is indicative of all of our love is directed at God, in accordance with His righteousness; and because it is in accordance with His righteousness solely, we are able still to love another, NOT with our own love, but with the love of God, or that there can be hatred even (holy hatred!), in our heart. In a nutshell, it is right to look upon our love for another, as “I love you with the love of God”. It is NOT wrong that we have no more love OF OUR OWN for anyone else; for ALL of our love is (you are supposed to) directed to God. Therefore, correctly, when we love others (other than God), we love with His love; likewise, we hate, with His hatred! You don’t get?! Let me explain below:

Loving our neighbours is flow-out from our love for God
Because when we love God, we love Him in accordance to His righteousness (you are supposed to), and so, you will do according to what God would do, as directed by His righteousness; remember we say God can only move according to His righteousness. Because we will (you are to) 100% subscription to His righteousness in our love for Him, we therefore, accordingly are to move according to His righteousness. God’s righteousness calls for loving men unto righteousness, and so, accordingly, His righteousness also called for men to love one another unto righteousness. So, when we love our neighbors, we are moving in His love, because we are fully subscribed to His righteousness; or put it in another way, we love (another) with the love of God.

The second commandment (by the way, when Jesus said “the first and the second”, the connotation is obvious, there are some more commandments we need to follow) which stated that we are to love our neighbors “as ourselves”, is indicative that it is with God’s love that we are to love our neighbors with, for God loves your neighbors as much as He loves you. So, if you are with your neighbor, and God gives you a pie, what is the thing to do? Think about that. What standard of righteousness God demands!

Hate another with the love of God!
Many also are puzzled by this text (words of Jesus) in Gospel of Luke, Luke 14:26-27 -

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

We have established that when we love another, we love with the love of God. When we hate (another), we, likewise, can only do it according to the righteousness of God. Can we say we hate with the hatred of God? Why NOT? There is no evil or wickedness in God, but God does hate! What does God hate? Evil, wickedness, sins, that which is in opposition to His righteousness. Of course, a more pleasant way of saying the same is “We hate (another) with the love of God”, for the love of God is love unto righteousness. Very simply, the Luke text was saying that we are to deny everything and everyone, including ourselves, if it or the person, conflicts with the righteousness of God. Jesus knew it is NOT easy for men; that was why he said “carry your cross and follow Me”.

Love each other with the love of God, not your own love!
Incidentally, spouses and loved ones, with correct understanding of this, will NOT be upset with their spouses or loved ones, when they are being told (by their spouses or loved ones) that they are loved with the love of God. If the person loved you with the love of God, that is the best love he can give you, and you should be happy that he love you with the love of God, and NOT the love of His own, for the love of God is love unto righteousness, and is the only love that gives life. If the person gives you his own love, He has NOT loved God with all his heart, all his soul and all his mind, and so he is NOT in perfect harmony with God. Would you rather he, be in perfect harmony with God, or to love you with his own love? If you demand he loves you with his own love, you are NOT loving God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, for the righteousness of God demands that he gives all of his love to God. You want to love God with all your hearts, all your soul and all your mind, then let him to do likewise!

No oxymoron, but essence of love, embrace it
That Matthew passage (Matt 22:36-39), is NOT oxymoron or self-contradictory! Verse 37 does indicate all our love is to be directed at God, and yet because we are loving Him back in accordance to His righteousness, we are still able to love another with His (God's) love. Be opened, and receive this revelation of love; and then strive to walk in it, even as I am trying.

There is no conflict between love and commands/laws!
Those who have understanding of what I said about love, can appreciate such sayings of Jesus that those who love God obeys His commands, and those who obeys His commands are the ones who love Him. It is all because the love Jesus was talking about, is love unto righteousness (`ahab love). The righteousness of God is given to us in His commands, in His Word, and through the Spirit. Also, those who argue that Jesus came to do away laws and commandments, have no right understanding of the subject of love. To explain this specifically would take another article, but the above should be basis enough for this claim of their poor understanding.

Only one love
Love for God is NOT first, as in at the top of a list; rather it is TOTAL, ALL. We are to have only ONE love, LOVE FOR GOD; everything else is we are moving in accordance to righteousness of God. When the righteousness of God calls for love, we love, when it calls to hate, we hate, and when it calls to forgive, we forgive.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, may you use this article to open the eyes of many more to appreciate that, ultimately you can only love Man unto righteousness (`ahab love), and we can love you back no other way, except in accordance with your righteousness. In the precious name of love, Jesus Christ, I pray. Amen.

PS: By the way, in case you are misled: these 2 pillars of love are NOT new; the greatest commandment was in Deu 6:5, and the second, in Lev 19:18.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Were Mary Magdalene and Mary Bethany the same person?

2011-10-18T18:20:00.000-07:00

Firstly, Mary Magdalene was also called Mary Magdala. Magdalene, in Hebrew מגדל Migdal means "tower", "fortress"; in Aramaic, "Magdala" means "tower" or "elevated, great, magnificent".

As a place, Magdala (Magadan?) was a place on the western shore of the Lake of Galilee, 3 miles north of Tiberias.

So, it is possible that “Mary Magdalene” was referring “Mary from a place”, therefore, Mary Magdala, or Mary of such and such distinction, and therefore, Mary The Fortress or Mary The Tower. Of course, it is also possible that it was both, meaning that Mary was Mary The Fortress or Tower, and she was also Mary Magdala, the Mary who did reside in Magdala, a place, perhaps an elevated place with some form of tower or fortress on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

The fuss about the name
Why the fuss about the meaning of the name of Mary, or what Magdalene was possibly referring to? Here is why: There was another Mary in the New Testament, and she was called Mary Bethany. Who was Mary Bethany? Could she have been the same person as Mary Magdalene?

Mary Bethany (MB), in Scripture, is the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 11:1-2). There is no dispute about this. In order to know if there is a possibility of MB was MM, we need to look at the background of MB. Just like MM, there was not much written in Scripture concerning the background of MB, Martha or Lazarus.

Siblings’ background from Golden Legend
But in extra-biblical material (Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints, compiled in 1300 AD), these were written of the siblings, Martha, Mary and Lazarus:

They were born of right noble lineage and parents, who were descended of the lineage of kings. Their father was named Syro (Cyrus) and their mother Encharia (Eucharis). The siblings possessed 3 places, (1) the castle of Magdalen (Magdalo), which was 2 miles from Nazareth in Galilee (with Sea of Galilee on the east), (2) Bethany town, and (3) a great part of Jerusalem, which, all these things they divided among themselves in such a way that Mary had the castle Magdalo, whereof she had her name Magdalene; Lazarus had the part of the city of Jerusalem, and Martha had to her part, Bethany.

Mary gave herself to all delights of the body, Lazarus extended all to knighthood, and Martha, who was wise, governed nobly her brother's part and also her sister's, and also her own, and administered to knights, and her servants, and to poor men, such necessities as they needed. Martha was recorded to be without husband, but she, as a noble hostess, ministered and served our Lord, Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, after the ascension of our Lord, they sold all these inheritance.

Isn’t it clear from the above, MB was MM. In fact, Martha was also called Martha Bethany which was the right name, for she owned Bethany. Because they were several Mary in that time and place (Mary or Miriam, being a common and popular name then), Mary was identified either as Mary Magdalene (MM), her rightful name for she owned the castle, Magdalo, at Magdala, or Mary Bethany (MB), especially when she was around her sister Martha or when she was in Bethany, a town near Jerusalem, Judea.

Catholics tradition had it for over 1,300 years, MM and MB were the same person.
In 591 A.D. Pope Gregory I (Gregory the Great) said that MB and MM were the same person. In 1969, however, the Catholic Church (the Vatican), without commenting on Pope Gregory’s reasoning, disassociated MM from being identified as MB or the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50. So, for more than 1,300 years in the early past, Catholics had the understanding that MM and MB were the same person; that was a long time, that it went unchallenged, and it spoke volume.

With the above background information on the siblings, Martha, Mary and Lazarus, it is possible that Gregory the Great was right, but there are no Scriptures to support it. What is important is that the extra-biblical information was in no way in contradiction to any clear facts of the Scripture.

How could the name, Mary, went silent just like that?
There is still one more line of thought that lends support to saying MM and MB were the same woman. In the Gospel of Luke, MM was first mentioned in Luke 8:1-3.

1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

The next time Luke mentioned MM (not just Mary but Mary Magdalene) was in Luke 24:10, where MM had gone to the tomb of Jesus and found that it was empty, and she with other women, reported back to the Apostles.

The Gospel of Matthews only recorded MM being at the scene of crucifixion (Matt 27:56), at Jesus burial (Matt 27:61), and at the tomb on the day of resurrection (Matt 28:1-10).

The Gospel of Mark also recorded similarly, MM being at scene of crucifixion (Mark 15:40), at Jesus burial (Mark 15:47), and at the tomb on the day of resurrection (Mark 16:1,9).

The Gospel of John recorded this: MM being at scene of crucifixion (John 19:25), no mention of her at Jesus burial, and at the tomb on the day of resurrection (John 20:1,10,18).

In other words, only the Gospel of Luke had an earlier mention of MM (in Luke 8:1-3), prior to the scene of crucifixion, the rest of the Gospels were silent until MM was at the ground of the crucifixion.

If we traced the time and routes of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Luke 8:1-3 was probably at the beginning of Jesus’ 2nd preaching tour of Galilee; Prior to this, Jesus traveled from His home down south, to Jerusalem, and went back home; after that, He set off for His preaching tours of Galilee. The 1st preaching tour of Galilee concentrated on the West side of the Sea of Galilee, the 2nd tour with the help of the women, and his disciples, the team crossed the Sea of Galilee to the East side of the Lake. There would still be a 3rd preaching tour of Galilee, before Jesus slowly moved south to go to Jerusalem, entered it, back-tracked northward a little, into the province of Perea, before re-entering Jerusalem for the last time.

So, the deliverance of MM was back in Galilee, before His final south trip (to Jerusalem) which would see Jesus NOT returning to Galilee. A lot of time lapsed and a lot of things happened between Luke 8:1-3, and Jesus’ crucifixion, yet MM was NOT reported in any of the Gospels in that in-between period. It was unlikely that MM had NOT followed Jesus in His final south trip to Jerusalem, or at least, joined Him at some point in the trip, for she was there at the crucifixion. If she was NOT significant, which one can argue that, since only Luke separately mentioned Jesus’ deliverance and cleansing of MM, although Apostle Mark, in Mark 16:9, when mentioning MM on the day of resurrection, did identified MM as the same MM Jesus had previously cleansed in Galilee. If she was insignificant, why must she be mentioned at the essential junctures of the unfolding of the Gospel, the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of the Lord? Her presence and mentions at these junctures actually showed she was a significant character. How come she did NOT feature in the long and important in-between period, or was it, it might be she did, in another name, as Mary Bethany (MB)!

Similar argument can be made for MB. Firstly, Jesus said of her this way: “When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” (Matt 26:12-13).

Secondly she was one who had shown great love for the Lord: at one occasion in Bethany (most probably before another separate occasion which had Jesus coming again, on the death of Lazarus {John 11:1-43}), in home of Martha, while Martha was busying herself with foods and so on, Mary was at Jesus’ feet listening to Him; and this is what Jesus said of her action vis-à-vis Martha’s:

“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42)

Jesus was meaning to say that Mary loved Him much, and because she loved Him much, she listened to Him. Jesus talked about love in this way: If you love me, you obey my commands (or listen to my words), and those who obey my commands (or listen to my words) are those who love me. Jesus was saying Mary’s love for Him would NOT be taken away from her.

Finally, 6 days before the Passover, in John 12:1-3, we read of MB’s show of love for Jesus, in Bethany, in the house of Simon the Leper, where Jesus and his disciples, including Lazarus, were having dinner, hosted in honor of Jesus, with Martha serving, took a pint of expensive perfume (costing a year’s wages), and poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped His feet with her hair, anointing Jesus for His burial in the days to come. Concerning the lavishing of the perfume on Jesus, Matthews recorded, as in Matt 26:12-13 which I given above, Jesus said MB’s act would be remembered wherever the gospel would be preached in the world.

Wouldn’t it be UNreasonable to find MB was NOT present at the ground of the crucifixion, at His burial or at His expected resurrection day? OR is it that she was there at the crucifixion and burial (remember what Jesus said when she anointed His feet {Matt 26:12-13}. If I were MB, wouldn’t I be at the crucifixion and burial? Wouldn’t you be, when you realised the Lord had given a prophecy involving you, and it was coming to pass?), and on the expected day of resurrection? It was just that she was called Mary Magdalene (MM) when she was NOT with her sister, Martha or she was NOT in Bethany, or it was intentional that she was to be remembered for who was she, Mary of Magdala, Mary The Tower, The Fortress, standing by the Lord when even the apostles stayed away (the disciple whom Jesus loved or the Beloved Disciple might NOT even be one of the Apostles; but there would another story, another article!)?

To me, the above is quite convincingly suggesting to us that MM and MB were the same person.

What about the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50?
There was an account of Jesus being anointed by a sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50, however no name was assigned to this woman. Could she be Mary Magdalene?

The scene was set in Galilee, possibly before Jesus went on the 2nd preaching tour of Galilee where Mary Magdalene and some other women supported Jesus and His disciples out of their own means, as mentioned in Luke 8:1-3. Some are of the view that the scene (Luke 7:36-50) was set in Bethany; that I believe is incorrect. It had to be in Galilee.

No name was mentioned for this sinful woman, and there was no tenable reference back to this sinful woman when MM was introduced by Luke in Luke 8:1-3; as such, linking the two together is almost pure speculation.

I said “almost” because there is one piece of extra-biblical information that might be used to link the two together, but it must be recognised as only a weak link, because it was extra-biblical and it is a putting of “two and two” together, so to speak:

In the background information given in the Golden Legend, of Mary, it was said that MM or MB (we established the possibility of MM was MB, earlier) took the castle, Magdalo, in Galilee, as her share of inheritance, and gave herself to all delights of the body, so it was possible prior to her deliverance mentioned in Luke 8:1-3, MM was living a life of decadence. But the scene of Luke 7:36-50 was NOT the scene of the deliverance mentioned in Luke 8:1-3; if it was the same person involved, I reckon MM was cleansed before the scene in the home of Simon, the Pharisee, recorded in Luke 7:36-50. If you go by the actions mentioned in the text, of the sinful woman, you will agree with me, the actions of the woman should be those of a person who had been previously touched by the Lord, NOT those of one who was coming to the Lord for the first time, especially if she had NOT been set free from all her encumbrances. She was (still) said as a sinful woman because that was what she was, before she was cleansed by the Lord, and perhaps, there was not sufficient time in-between that people saw and believed of the change in her and her lifestyle. To me, her actions showed she had repented of her previous lifestyle, and so, and therefore, it was proper for the Lord to say that her sins were forgiven her, in that Luke 7:36-50 text.

The Pope Gregory the Great in his Homily 33 indicated his belief that the sinful woman was MM. The pope linked the 7 demons to the 7 cardinal sins or vices, and even said that the perfume MM used to anoint Jesus in Luke 7:36-50 was previously used to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. The Pope explained her immolating herself at the feet of Jesus was symbol of her penitence, just as I believed it to be.

It is up to you to decide if you believe that Mary Magdalene had a decadent past. If you do, that darkness was cleansed; she repented and was forgiven by the Lord, and she went on to support the Lord in His earthly ministry, and stood by Him in the unfolding of the Gospel, in witnessing His ministry, in standing by Him at His crucifixion, at His burial, and at the expected day of His resurrection, and was the first person Jesus appeared to, on resurrection.

Conclusion
I have put weightage on the Golden Legend material in coming to my conclusion, and that conclusion is that MB was MM, and the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Galilee was MM. Without extra-biblical material, the linking of any 2 of the 3 (MM, MB and sinful woman), is speculation, for there are just NO tenable linkages, in Scripture.

After her deliverance and cleansing, MM became a friend of Jesus, and on His final journey south to Jerusalem, she introduced Jesus to her sister, Martha, and to her brother, Lazarus. Because Martha owns Bethany, and was a noble hostess, and Bethany was near to Jerusalem, Jesus accepted the hospitality of the siblings, and was at Bethany a couple of times. Jesus was said to love these siblings.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, indeed, over and over again, you showed to us that our shameful past could be put behind us, and we could look to a meaningful future in you when we truly turn to you. When we honor, you will honor us.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Liz has passed on (6th Oct 2011)

2011-10-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

Except for my own father who had passed on more than 10 years ago, I have NOT felt so sad on the demise of a person I know. Liz and I have never met face to face, yet when the news of her having left us, hit me, it almost caused me to have teary eyes if not for me holding back my emotion in an open office setting.

Some of you may have some recollection of who Liz Mah is (I am not going to use “was” in this line, for she still IS, in Heaven). She was the blog owner of “Liz adventure”. I mentioned her in a number of my blog entries, hoping that some more of us would intercede for her. Liz was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer back in June 2009. Soon after that, she started blogging. She named her blog, “Liz adventure”, because she was touched by the Lord in the hospital soon after she received her cancer diagnosis; she regarded the time following would be an adventure with the Lord. Indeed, as Christians, our lives, whether it is now in living an earthly life or thereafter, living a spiritual life, are adventures with our God. I believe Liz had wanted to chronicle in some way, her experiencing of her Lord seeing her through her ordeal in the battle against cancer.

I stumbled upon Liz’s blog in 2009, through a website that awarded blog articles on the internet as the “Best Christian article for the week”. When I was awarded in 2009, and so, I visited that site; I found amongst the recent award winners then, Liz’s article and site. I followed Liz’s blog ever since, communicated with her through emails and comments on her blogs, upheld her in prayer, and helped her along in understanding matters of the Christian faith.

It has been my privilege to have known Liz, even when it was only through the internet. Her husband, Henry, has posted his Eulogy on Liz, on her blog site. Henry said this: “These were the words she shared a little while after being diagnosed

Each day He brings new revelation as I draw closer to Him seeking His face. And living in God’s presence is far more beautiful than anything else and has even overshadowed the disease. I say, blessed be the name of the Lord. I see Him not only working in my life but in Henry’s life, my mum’s life and even in my cell group’s lives and I pray that you too will “catch the fire”.”

Liz did share with me about her being touched by the Lord in the hospital after she was diagnosed of the sickness. Whatever that was of the past, of Liz’s life, was NOT relevant; what was important she confessed and asked for God’s forgiveness, and then resolved to be the child God intended her to be. She held on dearly, that transforming touch, by the Lord. I could understand Liz concerning her holding onto that “touch” by the Lord, for I too, have had a “touch” in my own multi-years affliction.

When we receive a “touch” from the Lord, we receive a revelation given by the Spirit of God. It can be like something has dawned upon you, and its illumination is so bright and unmistakable. It is possible that over time, the Evil One will come to draw your eyes off that light, and cause doubts to surface in you, but you must stay steadfast. For my own case, my touch was the Lord revealing to me to let go of a matter which I kept clinging on as that which should never have happened, God forbid! I struggled with the “knot” in me, until the Lord revealed that He has accepted the matter as had happened even though He would NOT want to see such, happening. For Liz, I believe the Lord affirmed His love to her, and that love drew her to the Lord. It was NOT a matter of Liz or I, merited God’s favor, but it was in our afflictions, God chose to give us a lift. But as said, the Evil One would come to try to steal that revelation.

Jesus received the precious revelation that He was the Son of God from a “touch” from God - At His baptism, “… the Holy Spirit descended on him {Jesus} in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22). Yet, with that revelation, after that, after His fasting in the wilderness, the Evil One came to try to steal that revelation; Satan threw 3 temptations at Jesus to draw Him from the revelation that God had given Him. We knew Satan was NOT successful.

In the rest of the journey, which she called “adventure”, Liz persisted in the “God loves me and will see me through”, despite all the discomfort and pains she faced, including havocs the principalities threw at her. In response to God’s drawing, Liz drew closer to the Lord, living to know Him more; and to know Him more, she studied God’s Word diligently, enrolled into multi-months biblical courses, even multi-year course. She humbled herself to learn, and because she was willing, I was able to provide some understandings along the way. To know Him more, Liz, again despite her own discomfort, and difficulties, served God; she attended prayer meetings, helped in cancer support group, encouraged others in sickness or afflictions, and interceded for them.

I know for a fact that Liz interceded often for me, for the affliction that I was in, and for the Healing Meetings that I was planning to hold. Because she drew near to God, and cared for the people she prayed for, God even prompted her with “hints” of matters which she could NOT have any idea about. I did NOT reveal my own affliction to Liz until one day she emailed me sharing about a matter which she did NOT know why she was impressed upon to share with me in an email. I replied her, saying that I knew why; because it was concerning my affliction, the nature of which I previously had NOT revealed. And those who followed her blog would know, Liz continued tirelessly to update her blog. Even when she honestly shared about her struggles, she was always ending them up with being positive, and even praising the Lord. Liz had been steadfast to the end, trusting always, in the Lord, and we should learn from Liz’s example.

On top of that, Liz had NOT failed to do her bit for her family, comprising her husband, Henry, and their 2 young kids, and parents. Despite her difficulties, she would try to care for her children, and tried to pay attention to the needs of her family; these we could read from her entries, complete with photos, even.

In the brief journey of 2 plus years, Liz Mah travelled a humanly difficult patch, with the Lord accompanying as He had indicated in His “touch” in 2009. Liz’ courage and steadfastness in the Lord had touched many lives, including mine. Satan did NOT succeed to drag her off the Highway of Holiness (Isaiah 35:8-10) that believers like you and I travel on. Physical death is inevitable since the Fall of Man, there was NO fresh victory for Satan, only that Liz had passed on to take on the incorruptible body to live forever with her Lord. Liz’s end of journey here marked the beginning of another phase of her Kingdom living with the Lord. I am saddened that a friend has departed from us, yet I have the faith she is now with the Lord, contented. May she smile on us, as we continue in our journey.

I used to think many years back, what an ex-colleague of mine then was embarking on (leaving his employment to do), to minister to terminally ill non-believers, was a most difficult thing to do; I never thought then I would one day be involved with ministering to the sick, now I suppose I have to try to get used to people whom I minister to, over longer stretch of time, leaving us. The destiny of a child of God is in God’s hand, I shall do what I am to do; if I have NOT the rhema, I shall apply my discerned logos will of God; the rest is up to God, up to His plan and will for the ministee.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, strengthen me for your work. On top of it, may your exceeding grace be poured out through me, more often than not; may your quiet grace continue to be poured out to all I have the privilege to minister to, just as in the case of Liz. Let your grace be sufficient for both my ministees and I. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

The Initial Return to Zion

2011-09-28T21:25:00.000-07:00

Preamble: I entitled this article as such, and NOT as “Return to Zion”, as the return to Zion is as believed by many, still on-going. Some refer to the “Return to Zion” as “Aliyah to Israel” or “Immigration of Jews to the land of Israel”. Here, I just want to touch on the initial return of the Jews to Israel, post the Babylonian exile.

The Babylonian exile was a period in the Jewish history during which the Jews living in the Southern Kingdom, Judah, were exiled to Babylon.

According to Scripture, there were possibly 3 deportations of Jews to Babylon: in 597 BC, involving King Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah) and his court and many others; in 587/6 BC, of King Zedekiah (Installed by Babylonians to succeed King Jehoiachin) and the rest of the people; and a possible deportation after the assassination of Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor of Judah province, possibly in 582 BC.

The exile is commonly considered to have ended in 538 BC, with the proclamation by King Cyrus of the Persian Empire, who then was in control of Babylon.

The main books of the Bible on this initial return to Zion are the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. However, there were also many references connected to the subject, found in several other books, including the Book of Daniel, Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (the last 3 being the postexilic prophets) etc.

The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book, before it was first split up into 2 books around AD 3. We will be concentrating on these 2 books, in this exposition.

Why this article?
First, my pastor, new pastor, in church has started preaching on “Nehemiah” and has told us that it would be a series, and has given us a compressed history outline, from King David to King Zedekiah (pka Mattaniah, the last king of Judah). So, some members of the church have started reading up on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. I do not know the precise reasons for his wanting to preach on “Nehemiah”; it could be that the church has embarked on a building extension, and so, he was trying to tie into the “building/rebuilding” theme.

But I do wonder why pastors like to preach on “Nehemiah”; my outgoing senior pastor (“retiring”) also did a series on “Nehemiah” not too long ago. Actually, I cannot remember, for sure, now, what the Senior Pastor was emphasizing then. It did NOT mean I have NOT absorbed the teachings from that series; it probably was that I, and others too, absorbed and internalized some specific truths and lessons, without us, really in any way, thinking that we would ever be found in that kind rebuilding/building project; we probably thought that perhaps, we could apply this and that, in our business, in our workplace, in building of our career or company, and even family, etc. If I have NOT mistaken, perhaps, the Senior Pastor then was using the series to teach on how we should conduct our affairs in our work life. Perhaps, since heavy-weight pastors (well, the current pastor is expected to take over from the outgoing senior pastor), emphasized “Nehemiah”, more members of church were “curious” enough to read up! One brother attempted and called me up, and talked to me, saying that the 2 books are rather confusing, and he was wondering about questions such these:

1. The 2 Books were so similar in what were being recorded there; are the 2 books on the same one thing; one project, reported on by different people?
2. Could it be that some of the key characters there, were one and the same person?
3. There appears to be duplications or overlaps in the accounts of the 2 books. Are they really duplications or overlaps?
4. If we are NOT sure “who were who” and “who were doing what”, how are we to learn something from it all?

Synopsis of main events of the 2 books
Here is my synopsis:

End of exile: I will begin from the end of the Babylonian exile, and this was recorded for us in Ezra 1:1-4.

In 1st year of King Cyrus of Persia, who had gained control of Babylon, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by prophet Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of King Cyrus to make a proclamation throughout his realm (which included more than Babylon) and to put it in writing:

Proclamation of King Cyrus: The proclamation stated these:

That the LORD God had given him (King Cyrus) all the kingdoms of the earth and He had appointed him (King Cyrus) to build a temple for Him at Jerusalem in Judah;

That any of God’s people in the Persian Empire be allowed to go up to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God in Jerusalem;

That the people of any place where the Jews were exiled to, were to provide those going back to build the temple, with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with free-will offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.

The key thing to note: It is a proclamation for the Jews to go back to rebuild the Temple (only the Temple).

The response (Ezra 1:5-6): In response to the proclamation, the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites {this should be in relation to the exiles from Judah, residing in Babylon}, everyone whose heart God had moved, prepared to go up and build the LORD’s temple in Jerusalem.

In accordance to the proclamation, all the neighbors of the returning Jews assisted them with gold and silver, with goods and livestock, and with valuable gifts, in addition to all the free-will offerings for the building of the temple.

First wave, headed by Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:7-11): King Cyrus, on his part, returned the articles belonging to the temple of the LORD which the previous King of Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar) had carried away from Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:13). Now all the articles (5,400 articles of gold and silver) were counted out to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah then; who brought all of them along with the returning exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:11).

Key thing to note: So, from the above, we can say that as far as the exiles from Babylon going back to Jerusalem, they were headed by the prince of Judah then, one called Sheshbazzar. In Ezra 5:14-16, it was again mentioned that articles of the temple were entrusted by King Cyrus to Sheshbazzar. Additionally, it was said there, that Sheshbazzar was appointed Governor of Judah, and was tasked by King Cyrus to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem.

Another key thing to note: There is a question of whether or NOT Sheshbazzar was Zerubbabel. Who was Zerubbabel? Zerubbabel was the grandson of Jehoiachin, the penultimate King of Judah, and so he qualified as a prince of Judah. He was also listed first in the list of Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem, as in Ezra 2:2. In Ezra 3:8, he was again mentioned first, with Jeshua, among those who started work on the Temple. In Ezra 4:3, he again headed the Jews in telling off the Gentiles inhabitants who wanted part in rebuilding the Temple. Then, we also read in Zechariah 4:9 that it was Zerubbabel who laid the foundation of the Temple, whereas Ezra 5:16 recorded for us it was Sheshbazzar. Also, we read in Haggai 1:1 that Zerubbabel was the Governor of Judah. Notice the time specified in Haggai 1:1; it was shortly after the first wave of return (return was in 1st year, Haggai's mention was in 2nd year). Could they be the same person? One claim said precisely that; there are still other claims: one being Sheshbazzar was in fact Shenazzar, Zerubabbel's uncle (mentioned in the Books of Chronicles) and another, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it.

One thing for sure, it was NOT Ezra who headed this first works on the Temple building in Jerusalem, following the proclamation of King Cyrus. Ezra came into the picture afterwards, which we shall see later on Ezra 7:1-10.

Ezra came into the picture afterwards: Ezra was NOT involved in the Temple building at all! The party that went up to Jerusalem from Babylon, headed by Sheshbazzar (given in Ezra 2), and that headed by Ezra (given in Ezra 8, a small party) are different. It is a mistake to say that the company of 42,000 (Ezra 2:64) was headed by Ezra, as was sometimes said when the exposition of the Book of Nehemiah (Neh 7) was done; the company of 42,000 was referring the very first batch, and it was headed by Sheshbazzar, prince of Judah (or if you accept it, Zerubbabel).

Second wave, headed by Ezra (Ezra 7): By this time, the Temple was already completed and dedication had been done (Ezra 6). The “these things” in Ezra 7:1 was referring to such completion, dedication and installation of priests and Levites to run the Temple. It is after these things that Ezra, a scribe coming from the priestly line traceable all the way back to Aaron, came up to Jerusalem, from Babylon.

Who was Ezra?: Ezra was a scribe, an official chronicler. He is also a priest since he came from the line of Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5, 11). He was also a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses. The King, King Artaxerxes, granted him everything he asked, for the hand of God was on Ezra. Ezra went to Jerusalem with some Israelites, including priests, Levites, singers (temple singers), gatekeepers and temple servants. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 5th month of 7th year of King Artaxerxes’ reign. Ezra and his team successfully reach Jerusalem from Babylon in 4 months, for the hand of God was on him.

What was Ezra tasked to do?: Since the Temple had already been built (Ezra 6:15), why was Ezra sent to Jerusalem? Ezra 7:10 recorded for us what Ezra did, having returned to Israel: He devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of God and he taught the Law in Israel. We also know from later verses (Ezra 7:25-26), pertaining to the content of the commissioning letter the King gave to Ezra, the latter was to appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates. The King had wanted both the law of God and the law of King to be adopted. It has always been in the olden days in the Jewish community, certain Levites were sent out to be judges and magistrates in the land (1 Chr 26:29); here, the King was tasking Ezra to ensure the Law of God was applied in the land. In the later chapters, we would read of Ezra getting involved in matters pertaining to intermarriages forbidden under the Law of God.

Some regard the sending back of Ezra to Zion marked the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. I can only say that, it was a putting back of the “software” of the city, but NOT the physical rebuilding or the “hardware”. Another way of viewing Ezra’s work was that he was into the spiritual rebuilding of the Jews in the city of God, even as the Temple of God had been put in place (rebuilt).

Key point to note: Ezra was sent to establish once again the Law of God for Jerusalem which once again was with the Temple of God, newly built. Ezra was NOT involved in the rebuilding of the Temple, and he was NOT directly responsible for the physical rebuilding of the city, especially the city walls.

Nehemiah who?: What about Nehemiah? Where did he fit in? He too, went from Babylon, sanctioned by the King, to Jerusalem. What did he do there, if it was NOT the rebuilding of the Temple? For this we have to look into the Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was King Artaxerxes’ cupbearer. Basically, when sent over to Jerusalem, he supervised the rebuilding of the city walls, subsequent to the rebuilding of Temple in Jerusalem.

Nehemiah revealed what he was tasked to do (Neh 2:17-18): Now, addressing the people at Jerusalem (the Jews), he told them that they could see the trouble that the people in the city were in; that the city was in ruins, and its gates had been burned with fire. Nehemiah called to the people to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that they would no longer be in disgrace; as it was indeed a disgrace the great city of God lied forlorn. Nehemiah told the people about the gracious hand of God upon him (that the King of Babylon would send him to rebuild the city) and what the King had said to him. The Jews at Jerusalem were in agreement, and replied that they would start rebuilding; and so they began that good work.

If we consider Ezra was the one who started putting back the “software” for Zion, then Nehemiah was the one who started putting back the “hardware” for Zion. With the Temple rebuilt, and the city once again secure, the Initial Return of Zion had happened.

Key point to note: Nehemiah was sent to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem after the Temple was rebuilt and that was after Ezra was sent over to reinstitute the Law of God, and he, Nehemiah, was made Governor (Neh 8:9) of Judah.

Neh 7:4 – city wall completed: By this time, the wall of the city had been successfully rebuilt, and Nehemiah had set the doors in place, and had appointed gatekeepers to be on duty; in other words, the city was once again secure. According to Neh 6:15, it only took the Jews 52 days to complete the entire wall, finishing it on the 25th of 6th month.

The walled-in city was large and spacious, but there were few people in it, and the houses had NOT yet been rebuilt.

Wall finished, time to do a census (Neh 7:5): Once the wall was completed, the Jews were to return to their own towns (or villages), and God impressed upon Nehemiah to do a census (to register everyone) (Neh 7:5); and this most probably took place at the end of the 6th month (wall finished on the 25th of 6th month {Neh 6:15}) since after census, they assembled as one people to remember the covenant God made with the Jews (their forefathers), and renew their own commitment to God on 7th month (Neh 7:73). It was likely they gathered right from the 1st day of the month (7th month), for Neh 8:13 mentioned that the Jews re-gathered again on the 2nd day of the month after one day (you shall see that the 1st and 2nd days of the 7th month were significant, in the last item discussed in this article).

Time to re-gather and renew (Neh 7:73b – Neh 10): What better time to re-gather, to remember the covenant God made with the Jews (their forefathers) and to renew their own commitment to God, than immediately after the city wall was completed!

Ezra and Nehemiah together!: Some people are a little puzzled with the mentioning of Ezra’s role in Nehemiah 8-10, when arrival of Nehemiah was subsequent to Ezra. Some even wondered if Ezra, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel and Nehemiah are one and the same person! Apart from the possibility of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were the same person, Ezra, “Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel” and Nehemiah were different persons, for sure. I know, in Neh 8:9, Nehemiah was also said to be the Governor; but it was entirely possible Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel was governor and subsequently Nehemiah took over (in any case, Haggai 1:1 stated for us that Zerubbabel was governor in the 2nd year of King Darius, years before Nehemiah reached Jerusalem). In Neh 8:9, Nehemiah and Ezra were named together, and so, it could NOT be that they were one and the same person. When one understood the sequences of events as expounded above, there was nothing unusual about the Book of Nehemiah mentioning Ezra’s role, when in fact he was still alive and kicking, so to speak, and was performing what he was tasked by King Artaxerxes, the same king who send Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the 7th year of the King (‘s reign), and Nehemiah, 20th year.

According to Ezra 6:15, the Temple in Jerusalem was completed in 6th year of reign of King Darius. Now, there are disagreements, even among scholars, on the reigns of various Persian Kings, but generally there is no dispute in this chronological order: Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes. Whether or NOT Darius and Artaxerxes are the same king (and that would make Xerxes was also Darius/Artaxerxes) is NOT pertinent to the sequences of events here (perhaps, pertinent for those trying to account for “time period of Daniel” in the Book of Daniel), except on the age of Ezra. Plain reading gives us 3 kings listed in Ezra 6:14b (Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes). What is important is the same king name, Artaxerxes, was linked to the sending out of both Ezra and Nehemiah. We only need to believe that Ezra did live for another 13 years more after he reached Jerusalem, to account for he being recorded in Nehemiah 8-10, together with Nehemiah; for me, I just believe that.

Key point to note: Arguably after the wall was completed, Nehemiah and Ezra worked together on the ongoing rebuilding of the both the people of God and the city of God, Jerusalem, physically and spiritually (Neh 8-13).

As the synopsis of the main events of the 2 books, Ezra and Nehemiah, the above, I believe, is quite adequate; and it helps to answer some of the issues confusing people trying to unravel the books.

What are perhaps missing from the above are the followings:
1. I did NOT mention that Nehemiah did go back to King Artaxerxes, for a time and then he came back to Jerusalem. This was mentioned in the last chapter of Nehemiah, Neh 13:6-7.

2. Also, I have NOT touched on the oppositions the Jews faced in the initial return to Zion, covered in both books. In fact, this fact of oppositions, could stumble some to treat the projects in the 2 books as one. But of course, we know now, clearly, the separate projects included these: rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem (under Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel), re-instituting Law of God in Jerusalem (under Ezra), and rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (under Nehemiah). All these projects, they collectively was attempting to re-establish Jewish presence and dominance back to the land of Israel, and the key city being, the city of God, Jerusalem; and so, under whichever phase, oppositions were expected and indeed they occurred, and so, we read of them in both the books.

Rather than doing an exposition of the relevant verses in both the books, and the number of verses involved are many, I will attempt to give some background information, instead, for readers to understand how come there would be oppositions:

Before the Southern Kingdom, Judah, fell to the Babylonians, with the consequent exile of the Jews living in Judah to Babylon, the Northern Kingdom had fallen first, and it fell to the Assyrians. Generally, Judah was occupied by 2 of the 12 Tribes of Israel, Judah and Benjamin tribes. The Northern Kingdom, also known as Samaria (sometimes also called land of the Ephraim, because her 1st King was an Ephraimite, the half-tribe of the House of Joseph). The other 10 Tribes of Israel were living in the Northern Kingdom. The real culprit why the United Monarchy of Israel, broke into 2 was King Solomon (King David’s son who succeeded him). Despite the wisdom God granted him, Solomon, in his old age, sinned greatly against God; on the instigation of his wives or concubines, he set up high places (of worship) for pagan gods, causing many to worship other gods. God then decreed the punishment against King Solomon, but for the sake of His promise to King David, he relented to NOT breaking up the Kingdom in the time of King Solomon, but He said that it would come to pass in the time of the reign of the son of King Solomon, King Rehoboam. And it happened as said by the LORD; an Ephraimite, Jeroboam, tore 10 tribes away, leaving only the small tribe of Benjamin to remain loyal to the Judah tribe which was the Tribe King David belonged to. The Northern and Southern kingdoms then became enemies. The Northern Kingdom sinned greatly against God; King Jeroboam instituted the temples for the golden calves, and misled the people to bypass the Temple in the south, in Judah, to worship “God” in the 2 temples of the golden calves put up. Subsequent kings also went for other pagan god worship, and misled the people. Eventually, before the fall of Judah, God gave Samaria over to the Assyrians. The Assyrians had a strategy of hollowing out the land they conquered and replacing the residents with people from other lands they conquered, and so, the 10 Tribes of Israel staying in the North were exiled all over the places, and Samaria was then populated with peoples from other lands. With the fall of the South, Judah, the whole Promised Land was left with few Jews, probably only some in the south, in Judah, for the Babylonians still appointed governor over the remnant in Judah {Only the poorest were left behind – 2 Kings 24:14}. Over time of course, the peoples, non-Jews, from other lands, as well as the original inhabitants of the Promised Land, they just moved about in the land, including going down south, into Judah and Jerusalem. That was why it was NOT surprising that the 2 books made mention of Canaanite tribes (original inhabitants of the Promised Land) and other people groups like Ammonites, etc, opposing the coming back of the Jews to Zion. Of course, the returning Jews did NOT want the non-Jews inhabitants of the land to have part in building the Temple, for if they had done so, pagan gods would be insisted by the non-Jews to have place in the Temple, which of course, would NOT do. And you can easily understand the rebuilding of the city wall was NOT welcomed. Sanballat (Neh 4), a Horonite, an inhabitant of Horonaim in Moab, for example, with his alliances in Samaria would NOT want the wall. Tobiah, an Ammonite, was sided with him (Sanballat) {By the way, the Moab and Ammonites were descendants from Lot, Abraham’s nephew; and the Israelites crossed with them in their exodus into the Promised Land}. Even the Arabs and the men of Ashdod were there, and they objected to rebuilding of the wall, for they all wanted NOT to see the power of the Jews return {Who are the men of Ashdod? Maybe this helps: “The first documented settlement in Ashdod dates to the Canaanite culture of 17 BC, making the city one of the oldest in the world. Ashdod is mentioned 13 times in the Bible. During its history the city was settled by Philistines, Israelites, Byzantines, Crusaders and Arabs.” Today it is the 6th largest city in Israel.}. The Trans-Euphrates region’s habitants did NOT want the Jews to regain their glory, and the various officials (for the region) under the Persian Empire tried to stall the return of the Jews (they sent letters to the King to instigate the King to abort the return of the Jews). Nehemiah was well aware of that (he was the cup-bearer of the King, and he was close enough to know), so he asked for letters from the King for safe-passage as well as letters from the King directing the officials to support and supply resource for the rebuilding of the wall. All those talk of oppositions were NOT duplicates, rather they were ongoing oppositions against the Jews regaining foothold in Israel.

3. The 2nd last issue I will address is concerning the near exact duplication of Ezra 2 in Neh 7 (more specifically, Neh 7:6-73a). Ezra 2 was indeed “plucked in” to complete what was said concerning Nehemiah’s finding of the genealogical records of those who had been the FIRST to return. This actually was referring to those who came back in the first wave, under Sheshbazzar, NOT Ezra. Those who came back with Ezra were recorded for us, in Ezra 8. You should just read the text as a “pluck-in”, there are no mixing of separate events.

4. The last issue I will address here, is in a way connected to the confusion in point 3 above, but it is an understanding that one is to have, so that the verses saying, “When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man…” (Ezra 3:1) and “When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, all the people assembled as one man…” (Neh 7:73b-Neh 8:1) are NOT treated as one and the same verse attached to Ezra 2. In other words, the Book of Nehemiah’s “7th month came” was NOT the same “7th month came” of the Book of Ezra; they were 7th months, alright, but belonging to different years or times. In the book of Ezra, it was referring to the time after the Temple was completed and dedicated and Ezra came to Jerusalem (he arrived in 5th month) and then in the 7th month of the year, he gathered all the people. In the Book of Nehemiah, the 7th month was the 7th month of the year in which the wall of Jerusalem had been finished building (finished on 25th of 6th month). But why big events on both 7th months? It is because the 7th month is the year the Jewish Calendar year increases by one, in other words, the first day of the 7th month was the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) {just like our present day Gregorian Calendar’s 1st Jan is the New Year Day}! Rosh Hashanah occurs on the first and second days of Tishri (7th month). In Hebrew, Rosh Hashanah means, literally, "head of the year" or "first of the year." Many of us use the New Year (Gregorian New Year) as a time to plan a better life, making "resolutions." Likewise, the Jewish New Year is a time to begin introspection, looking back at the mistakes of the past year and planning the changes to make in the New Year. That was what happened in both occasions of the New Year, in book of Ezra and in the book of Nehemiah. In fact, Neh 8-10 showed that the Jews NOT only looked back at the mistakes of yesteryear, but yesteryears!

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, perhaps, now with such revelations as above, readers can then move pass the confusion stage; and with understanding of events, begin to learn valuable guides you embedded in these historical recordings in Scripture, to apply in their lives, be it their work life, personal life or in service to you. Lord, I have learned much myself. Thank you, Lord. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Sinner’s Prayer - Sample

2011-09-20T19:47:00.000-07:00

Have you ever led one to Christ? Or if you have, did you find yourself unsure of how to do it? This little article is NOT about how to share the Gospel; it is about praying with a person to receive Jesus Christ into his or her life. As I will be heading up a regular Healing Meeting in which I hope this ministry will also be seeing people coming to Christ (after all, physical, emotional or psychological healing is only a temporal solution to men’s fallen predicament, salvation, the permanent solution), I have recently crafted the Sinner’s Prayer that I (and perhaps, my Meeting Partners, too) could use. As a side, you can get details of the Healing Meetings here: “Anthony Chia’s Healing Meetings”; and I covet your prayers for the ministry.

The sample prayer is simple enough: there are 7 points altogether, including the “thank you, Amen”. What you should do is, first of all, confirm that the person is ready to accept Jesus. The person must know what he/she is about to do; it is a serious matter – the coming to Christ. You are to lead the person in the Sinner’s Prayer; and by that, I mean you ask him to repeat after you, the Sinner’s Prayer. It is best you let the person know what the prayer consists of. So, what you do is that you tell the person the prayer will cover these 7 points:

1. (A)cknowledge that you are a sinner
2. (R)epent from sinning
3. (C)onfess your sins {specific and generally}

4. (A)ffirm your belief that Jesus died for you
5. (R)esolve to follow Jesus
6. (C)onfess submission to Lordship

7. Thank Jesus, followed by (Amen).

Ask the person if it is alright with him to repeat the prayer with you. When he/she says it is ok, you can then go ahead. If he/she has question(s) concerning any of the 7 points, you can explain first, before actually doing the Prayer with the person. I have given (below) the scriptural support for the points in the Prayer; you can use them in your explanation if necessary. The lines in bold and italic and within quotation marks are the prayer lines you are to say, and the person will repeat after you.

Guiding cues to remember: 7 points – A.R.C., A.R.C., Amen; 1st 4 points start with “God, I ...”, the last 3 points, with “Jesus, I …”.

Sinner’s Prayer – A.R.C., A.R.C., Amen (crafted by Anthony Chia – 08 Sep 2011)

1. Acknowledge that you are a sinner. Rom 3:23 stated for us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

“God, I acknowledge that I am a sinner, and that I have fallen short of your glory”.

2. Repent from sinning. Acts 3:19 – Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.

“God, I know that sinning is NOT acceptable to you and I now turn from it, and turn to you.”

3. Confess your sins. 1 John 1:9 said that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.

“God, I now confess specifically these sins of mine: … “ (say: you name them silently before the Lord, as far as you can remember. The Spirit of God will bring some of them to memory. {Give the person a minute or two to do this})

“God, I also confess generally, all other sins of mine, and ask for your forgiveness and cleansing. God, forgive me all my sins and cleanse me of all unrighteousness.”

4. Affirm your belief. John 3:16 stated that we are to believe that God so loved the world that He sent His one and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us on the Cross, and that whoever believes in Him should NOT perish but have eternal life.

“God, I believe you so loved me that you have sent your one and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die for me on the Cross to pay for the penalty of my sins, and NOW THAT I believe in Him, and the works of Him, I should NOT perish, but have eternal life.”

5. Resolve to follow Jesus. In Mark 8:34, Jesus said this: If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

“Jesus, I resolve to follow you. I resolve to deny the carnal me, and I resolve to take up the cross you will be assigning me, and I will follow you.”

6. Confess submission to Lordship. Romans 10:9 said that if we believe in our heart that “Jesus is Lord” and that God raised Him from dead, and confess it with our mouth, we will be saved.

“Jesus, I confess you as my Lord and that you are the resurrected Messiah/King”

7. "Jesus, I thank you for your grace, Amen."

Anthony Chia, high.expressions - Lord, may many find use for this sample Sinner's Prayer I have crafted, to lead many into your Kingdom, as you have desired. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

It is God can heal and God does heal (PART II)

2011-09-14T22:33:00.000-07:00

In PART I, we have looked at the issue of whether or NOT God CAN heal. In this part, we will look at whether or NOT God DOES heal.

It is NOT in the past, God DOES heal
It is NOT God did heal and He does NOT heal anymore. Some segments in the Christian faith believe, that is the case; that God did heal people in the past, but He no longer heals. In other words, they do NOT doubt that God is capable of healing (God CAN heal), but they do NOT believe God DOES heal anymore.

From the Word:
1. As we have seen above (PART I), God healed in the OT period, in the NT period, healed in the early years of the Church. God healed in the OT, Jesus healed in His earthly ministry, His early disciples healed when they were with Jesus, and thereafter, too, i.e. after Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Here are some examples of healings done “through” the early disciples, after Jesus was resurrected (from the Book of Acts):

- 1.1 Lame from birth healed by Apostle Peter (Acts 3:2,6-8)
2 Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called
  Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple
courts. 6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you.
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 Taking him by the right hand, he
helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped
to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts,
walking and jumping, and praising God.

- 1.2 Apostles healed many (Acts 5:12, 15-16)

- 1.3 Paralytics, cripples and demonized/demon possessed healed by Apostle Philip (Acts
  8:6-8)

- 1.4 Ananias of Damascus healed Paul’s blindness (Acts 9:17-18)

- 1.5 In Lydda, Peter healed a paralytic of 8 years (Acts 9:33-35)

- 1.6 In Joppa, Peter raised philanthropic Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-37, 40-42)

- 1.7 In Lystra, Paul healed a cripple/lame from birth (Acts 14:8-10)

- 1.8 Paul delivered a slave of the spirit of divination (Acts 16:16-18)

- 1.9 Paul healed and delivered through transference onto objects {handkerchiefs and
  aprons} (Acts 19:11-12)

- 1.10 Paul raised a young man from the dead {fallen from 3rd storey} (Acts 20:7-12)

- 1.11 Shipwrecked on Malta, Paul himself was healed of venomous snake bite (Acts
28:3-6)

- 1.12 On Malta, Paul also healed the island’s chief’s father of fever and dysentery, and
  others of sickness (Acts 28:7-9)

2. There was no recording anywhere in Scripture that divine healings were only for the setting up of the early church, and that it was to cease thereafter. Such a posture that divine healing was only for the initial setting up of the Church is mere unsubstantiated speculation.

3. On the contrary, the Apostles left us clue to expect God’s continual work of healing. The Apostle James left these words to us:

“Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14)

4. Jesus’ words in the Bible:

- 4.1 Concerning the Great commission: These were the words of Jesus, recorded for
  us in Gospel of Mark –

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all
  creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
  believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In
my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will
pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt
them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get
  well.” (Mark 16:15-18)

Do you think that this work that Jesus referred to, is already all done; the good news has finished being preached? It cannot be, for if it were the case, Jesus would be back (Matt 24:14). No, right! So, do NOT believe the speculation that divine healing is no longer applicable past the initial years of the worldwide church.

The Lord worked with the early disciples, there is no reason, and indeed there was no reason, given in scriptures, pointing to He will NOT work with us, past the Apostle Paul’s era.

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. (Mark 16:19-20)

- 4.2 Jesus’ manifesto was prophesied by prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 61, and it was
  restated for us, by Jesus, in Luke 4:18-19:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news
to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of
sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s
favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

Without doing a full exposition of the manifesto of Jesus, we can accept that apart from spiritual healing, it pointed also to physical and emotional healing for the sick, and the driving out of evil spirits from people. In the sending of the Twelve, what was recorded for us in the Gospel of Matthew was consistent with it:

He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; ….. and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (Matthew 10:1-8)

What do disciples do? Disciples carry on with the manifesto of the master. The Lord, Jesus, was the master of the Twelve; is He NOT your master? Wouldn’t we be doing the same, carrying on with the manifesto of Jesus? This is what Jesus left us with, concerning this:

I {Jesus} tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (John 14:12)

Isn’t it clear enough that Jesus expects us to continue with the same, which included praying for the sick, and He would work with us, like He worked with the early disciples, as stated in Mark 16:19-20 (given above)?

- 4.3 Do the things you did at first {said Jesus}: In warning the 7 churches in the Book
of Revelation, through vision and revelation to the Apostle John, and as against the
  Ephesians church, Jesus said this:

4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the
height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you
do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev
2:4-5)

I submit to you that one of the items comprised in the unhappiness, and the warning, is the lack of attentiveness to what was closest to the master’s heart. What is closest to the Master’s heart? Think about it, as a disciple, what do you think is dear in the master’s heart? Yes, his manifesto. When a master takes in a disciple, what do you think he is hoping for? Yes, the disciple would carry on with what is dear in his (the master’s) heart; even when he, the master, is no more around, he would be expecting his disciple to be doing just what he, the master, would be doing. This really calls for the attentiveness that we first gave to our master. The point is that the master’ manifesto did include healing; he does want to heal, and does want us to work with Him, at the opportune time, to heal the sick. We got to want to do that, be attentive, to heal (pray for healing), in the name of Jesus.

5. God the same yesterday, today and forevermore:
“I the LORD do not change (Mal 3:6a). Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and
today and forever. (Heb 13:8).

While it will be exaggeration to say nothing will change with God, it is clear enough, the nature-attributes, or some called them character-attributes, of God, do NOT change, meaning that God is holy, He is holy; it does NOT change. That He loves, full of wisdom, consistent, reliable, and dependable, such do NOT change. Also, the personhood attributes of God do NOT change either; these included such personhood of God as: God is God, God is Creator, God is Father, God is Saviour, and God is Healer, etc.

The perfect harmonization of the nature-attributes and personhood attributes does NOT change either; but such perfect harmonization belongs to God and God only; we cannot reach that level of wisdom and sophistication of the Godhead, and the RESULT of that perfect harmonization is NOT the same all the time. In other words, if today calls for a little more fatherly love to be shown to you, the perfect harmonization of God will result in just that, that perfect level of fatherly love for you; likewise, if today, chastisement should be rendered you, God would reach that perfect harmonization required for chastising you. That is why God NEVER gives up His prerogative to be true to Himself, and so, we read of such thing as “Sovereignty is mine”. Or “I shall have mercy on whom I have mercy on, and I shall have compassion on whom I have compassion on.” (Rom 9:15). But undoubtedly, it is in God the personhood of a Healer; He is Jehovah Rapha, God the Healer, and so, God can be expected to heal, although it may NOT be at every time or situation, but it is indeed He did heal and He does heal.

6. God is holy. What does it got to do with healing you may ask? It has everything to do with healing, because “God is holy” implies He can only be consistent, reliable and dependable. It is in such character attributes coming from His holiness, that we can and are reasonable to expect that God will continue to heal.

7. That there is to be false/counterfeit signs and wonders, and miracles, means that there is also the authentic things in the first place: 2 important things people failed to realize:

One, when there is no genuine one, there is no false or counterfeit to talk about; why would the Bible warns of false or counterfeit signs and wonders, and miracles if there was no expectation there will be the real things? It is because there is the real and the counterfeit, that there is a need to warn people. Did the Word warn? Yes,

“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible” (Matt 24:24). “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.” (2 Cor 11:13-15)

Two, what do you do? No, the answer is NOT that we forget about signs and wonders and miracles. You mean, you also forget about the pastors and the apostles of the church, since 2 Cor 11:13-15 said that there will be fakes, false apostles, deceitful workmen masquerading as apostles of Christ. Do you shut yourself in and not mix with anyone, since the one you mix with or talk to, can be a crook, out to cheat you or mislead you? No, right? You go tell a woman to forget about diamonds and precious stones on the ground of there are useless stones out there. They will tell you, you are crazy and stupid, you don’t forget about diamonds and precious stones, you learn to tell them apart; you keep the precious stones, and throw away the useless stones or counterfeits. Or please don’t throw the baby out together with the bath water. Are not signs and wonders and miracles precious, or the baby precious? Yes, so you don’t throw them out. Just because there is the true God and the false God, are you going to tell God, sorry God, in that case, I will have nothing to do with God. So, if there is expectation of counterfeit healing, there is the real healing coming; meaning, God can be expected to heal, and you should want it.

8. Scriptures spoke of spiritual gifts for believers, including gift of healing (1 Cor 12:8-10). The Books of Corinthians were written by the Apostle Paul; if divine healing was NOT expected beyond his time, do you honestly think that Paul would record them for us.

9. By His strips we are/were healed. If you look at Isaiah 53:5, it said there, that “we are healed”. If you look at 1 Peter 2:24 (KJV, clearer), you find that it was written there as “we were healed”. Regardless of “are” or “were”, there is no contention over the fact that a one-time incident of Jesus’ crucifixion is still good for any future person, relative to Jesus’ crucifixion. In other words, today, in the 21st century, an unbeliever can still become a believer despite Jesus having died more than 2,000 years ago. If the person can enter into salvation now, it also means that now, as he enters into salvation, he can be healed. This is still so, even if Isaiah 53 were worded with “we were healed”. What this meant is God can still heal, since what held true then, must still hold true today, or in the future, for the person who is entering into salvation, that he will effectively enters into salvation and can receive healing by the stripes of Jesus. This is apart from the controversy over whether or NOT, there is present continuous healing for our body, as argued by those believing that the correct rendering of Isaiah 53:5 is “are healed”, and NOT “were healed”.

From experiences:
Of course, the many accounts cited earlier were healing experiences of people, but because they were recorded in Scripture, they formed part of the Word. So, the experiences here are to be taken as extra-biblical experiences. What is the essential difference between the two? There is a difference, and we must know to avoid falling into the fallacy of, we can form doctrines and theologies out of our pure experiences. We cannot do that, for doctrines and theologies of the faith can only be formed solely from the Word which included recorded accounts of experiences. That they were selected through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for recording in the Word, they formed part of the Word, but our experiences (extra-biblical) are NOT; our experiences only testify to the truth of the Word.

So, what extra-biblical experiences are there to testify to divine healings still happening, or that God still heals?

There are many, and of course, if we search the internet, you will find many listings of divine healings (from the Christian God). You may argue that you do not know of the authenticity of all those reported accounts, but there are enough that clearly cannot be untrue. I will just for the purpose here, give one site where I believe what are listed there are to the best of knowledge of the church leadership, genuine divine healings: Prophet Kobus’ Spirit Word Ministries Miracles.

Closer to home, I would like to share my friend, Barney Lau’s testimony of his and his wife’s healings by the Lord in 1995, in Singapore. His full testimony can be read from Full Gospel Business, Singapore (FGB{s})’s gatekeepers magazine Issue No 5 starting from page 20.

Back in 1995, both Barney and his wife were yet believers or Christians, even though they had had been to church services and church-type activities. Barney’s wife was then diagnosed with Trigemina neuralgia with pain coming on from one side of her head. The pain came all the way to the face; even a light wind blow on her face would cause excruciating pain on her face. Further examinations including scanning revealed that she was having a tumour in her forehead. Meanwhile, Barney himself was with searing back pain for more than 2 decades (20 years), with the pain coming on and off, but when it came, it would be very painful for Barney who had to close his eyes and clench his teeth until the pain passed over. In that year, 1995, Barney attended a miracle healing service in a church in Singapore, with his wife. They responded to the call of the Minister; knelt down, sobbed and surrendered their lives and sicknesses to God. After two weeks, they discovered that God had healed them both. The pain of both disappeared and did not return. Up to today, Barney, with grown up children, still testifies of the miracle of God healing them back in 1995, and Barney himself, now actively invites people to the same healing service in which he and his wife were healed back in 1995. Does God still heal? Yes, He does.

Conclusion
In part I of this 2-parts article, we have looked at the issue of whether or not God can heal; and we concluded, from looking at the Word and the healing accounts done by God or His Son, Jesus, recorded in the Word, that God indeed can heal, and did heal. In part II, which we have just seen, from the Word, healings accounts done by God through the ministries of the disciples of Jesus in the Book of Acts, and from men’s extra-biblical experiences of divine healings, even up to present day, we can conclude that God has continued to heal, and therefore, we can confidently say that God CAN and DOES heal.

Although it is God CAN and DOES heal, it is NOT God MUST and WILL heal, the latter I have established for us, in my separate article, “People are NOT healed all the time, why we still pray”.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – God, you know I know it is NOT that every sick MUST be healed by you, every time, for it is NOT in your plan that men will NOT die physically, yet, you are a God of compassion and love, and you still care for us, men, while we lived, despite we are destined to die physically. You CAN heal, and you DID heal, and it is clear that you DO heal, and so, with this understandings, I have stepped forward to be your minister for healing, and I ask, in the mighty name of your Son, Jesus Christ, for the authority and power to heal the sick and cast out demons. I ask for your supernatural gifts of healing and miracles, as detailed in 1 Cor 12:8-10, to be activated in my life, to bless those in need, to glorify you, and to lift up Jesus, so that Jesus will draw men into your Kingdom, as you have desired. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Anthony Chia's Healing Meetings

2011-09-06T03:05:00.000-07:00

Together with a few brothers from a division of the Singapore Healing Room, and a
brother from a FamilyLife Ministry, I have since 2011, headed up a marketplace             Divine Healing Meeting.

We trust that as we honor God, trust in Him, and do His bidding, God will honor us, and render His Divine powers to bless those coming to seek His face. Currently, this meeting is run on a once a month basis, on a Saturday. We will announce each meeting date, on this website, as it draws near.

The first meeting took place on 8 Oct 2011. The next monthly meeting is on Saturday,
04 Feb 2012.

Venue: Eltraco's conference room @ TradeHub 21 (link for map & transport info)
Jalan Boon Lay #10-103/104 (West Lobby - vis lift opposite MacDonald)
Time: 4pm to 6pm
Liturgy: Include praise & worship, short sermon, ministry thereafter


You are welcome, and you may bring the sick. If you want to email me (for enquiry
or to submit testimony of God's ministry to you), here is the address: ... {click on it to
reveal the complete email address}.

I covet your prayers for this ministry.

Anthony Chia.

PS: If you want to be included in an email notification list for the date of the next coming meeting, please do not hesitate to drop me an email.

To go back to blog main page, click here.

A Journal of the humble Beginning

The 1st Healing Meeting (08 Oct 2011)
After months of contemplations, prayers and weeks of preparation, finally the day came for the first Healing Meeting that I headed up. Tens and tens of people have been notified of the first meeting. Reminder flyers, through both SMS and emails were sent out, more than once. Yet, when the actual day came, only one soul came to the meeting!

So, the first Healing Meeting went ahead ½ hour later (because we waited to see if more would come) with only the Meeting Partners (4 persons) and I and the lone soul, a sister from COOS. Only 6 people altogether! Well, I believe we did get a perfect 7, 6 of us and God, by His Holy Spirit. Pathetic?

Well, the Spirit just reminded me that I had wanted to end my message for the meeting “Not everyone is healed all of the time, why we still pray for the sick?”, with “if it is 1 success of 7 attempts, I am more than willing to pray; even if it is 1 out of 77, I will still pray”. I did NOT actually say that (because of the poor number present), but it was and is an expression of my willingness to just give of my time and energy, regardless of achievement.

Lord, we did minister to the sole audience. Ok, I admit I was a bit disappointed, but I let it go, didn’t I? After all, the key figure of the meeting was NOT and could NOT be me, but it was you, Lord. I could heal no one; it was to be you who would heal and minister. I could only make myself available; that was all. One person or many people, regardless, I have done my part, I gave of my time for that meeting. I am ok, not bruised, Lord.

But Lord, I had four others, the Meeting Partners, spending their time with me in that meeting. I was somewhat embarrassed of having them spending that time in the meeting; I am alright with my time spent. I suppose you took care of that (the partners), if you have not, I trust you will.

You see, the Meeting Partners were “high-powered” believers, who they themselves, could be in my place, to lead such a meeting, but they had deferred to my organizing and leading such a monthly meeting. The worship leader is with the Family Life Ministry of a church, and the other partners are all Ministers of the Healing Room.

Thank you, folks for your time, especially for the worship leader who had to prepare hard for the praise and worship (P&W). The P&W done in the meeting, even though there were only 7 (Holy Spirit, I count you in) were superb. Brother, you are alright; I had NOT previously (at least I could NOT remember) seen you led in P&W, and had gone by faith in you are the one, after a few had turned me down, for the role you took up. I am glad that you did benefit from the message and the group sharing after the message. Well, I altered my program according to the “poor audience” and went into group sharing (after the message) with the sister who came.

The alteration to the program I reckoned was appropriate, except for one, all shared, I think (Sorry, I did NOT note enough to solicit your participation, TS). The partner who was also the host of the place, expressed it was good we had the group sharing, especially the sharing was drawn from our ministry experiences and testimonies. It was my prayer for the meeting that no one would leave the place without being touched in one way or another by the message or by God.

At the end of the meeting, we did pray for the sister who came. We believe the sister did not go off empty-handed. Sister, again thank you for your turning up. We also prayed for everyone, except myself! How come I did NOT realize until now that everyone received a prayer except me! It is alright, I was the leader, what! Two partners were prayed for, to go to Indonesia for mission surveying; one partner, for mission trip to Sabah, East Malaysia. For the host (partner), I prayed for His goods to arrive in time for his business delivery schedules.

All in all, it was still a good meeting. I want to thank the Meeting Partners, and the sister who came.

Anthony Chia – Lord, thank you, you did NOT just bring me a lone pastor as audience; you know I informed a number of them! Thank you, also, that you did NOT let me have zero outside audience! May you bring more people to the next meeting. Lord, I am NOT shy to have this recorded, so you must not, too. Recorded this shortly after the meeting.

The 2nd Healing Meeting (12 Nov 2011)
Now, it rained cats and dogs, this Saturday afternoon; even up to the time the meeting was to begin, it was still raining. I remember praying to the Lord about it, and when I was at the open car-park, I had to run from my car to the building, with my tie (I was a little more formal than before, for it was only right; where I could, I should give God, the due recognition of His importance, and that I was His formal vessel for the afternoon), sermon notes, bible and all, to avoid being too wet!

The last meeting (1st meeting) we had only one “outside” person attended the meeting, and this afternoon, it was pouring; how many would come? Well, rain or shine, the meeting must go on, I thought to myself, even after I prayed concerning the meeting, that God would need to help bring the people, and to come and minister. Some time, after the 1st meeting, a brother, William, called me up and said that he had prayed about my healing meetings, and he perceived that the Lord had indicated that many people would come to the meetings. This brother was NOT at the first meeting, and he did NOT, of course, know that in the 1st meeting only one turned up! I knew he did NOT mean, immediately, in the next meeting, many would turn up, but he was clear that many would come to the meetings (in course of time). I take that as a prophetic word from the Lord. I know by now, you would be curious to know how many people turned up at this 2nd meeting. This time there was a five-fold increase; five “outside” people. Ha, ha, it was five-fold, since the last time there was only one!

One of the Meeting Partners could not turn up, and so, 3 Partners and I, and 5 others were present at the meeting; making a total of 9 people. If I add the Holy Spirit, like I did for the 1st Meeting, the number made up 10 (10 being a completeness of order). I thank God for the 5-fold increase; and I hereby thank the meeting partners too, for 3 of the 5 “outside” people who came, came from a previous meeting some of partners organized on their own. It is a beautiful thing in the eyes of God that brothers and sisters join their hearts to do a worthy cause in the eyes of God. May God continue to bless all those who are involved in any way in these Healing Meetings, especially the Meeting Partners.

Again, we started half an hour later, to wait to see if some more would come, since few were present and it was raining. Again, our worship leader did a fine job, leading us to high praises unto the Lord. I shared on this message: Sickness good? Nay. For those present, please accept my apology that it was too long. Although, there were few to be ministered afterwards, still the message should NOT be too long; for one thing, most of us could NOT stay focus for too long. I will take note, and the next meeting message will be shorter. Because of the small group setting, again I allowed for Q&A after the message. It was good to know concerning sickness, what was and is still the common “troubling” question; it was raised, the question of “Would God definitely heal?” Actually, it pertains to the 1st Meeting message, which some of those present did NOT have had the privilege of hearing. I could NOT spend too much time to explain the issue all over again, but have explained in brief, and referred the audience to this blog-site, where there is an article of similar title. To confront sickness, these questions, “Is sickness from God? Is sickness any good? and God does NOT necessarily heal everyone ALL the time, why we still pray for the sick?” are indeed, in need of answers and understanding; both, for the sick and those who minister to the former.

The issue of difficulty of engaging in prayer for the sick, if one is NOT absolutely certain that God WILL (or MUST) heal was raised. I had to express my reluctance to agree to taking a simplistic view to conform the truth of God to what would make it easier for us to pray in “faith” for the sick. Although I will NOT expound on faith here, but the faith of the Bible comprised 2 parts: a belief based on a truth of the Word, and a conviction part, thereof. The relevant key in question is the “truth”. The trust or belief must be based on a truth; if we make up a truth, then the whole thing is NOT faith, as far as God is concerned. If one’s truth is “God MUST and WILL heal”, then that truth is faulty, even though having that “truth”, to you, you would have no problem praying in “faith”, but your understanding of Him and His ways would NOT be honoring to Him. It is NOT a matter of basing on experience, that one should claim that it is NOT God MUST and WILL heal; I do NOT form doctrines and theology out of experience, and it is wrong of people to do so. Rather, doctrines and theology MUST be derived from the Word. There is actually backing in the Word for it is NOT God MUST and WILL heal. It is NOT honoring God if you dismiss His sovereignty. God NEVER let go (unconditionally) His prerogative to be true to Himself. There are actually relatively few unconditional promises in Scripture. Actually, the issue of, it is NOT God MUST and WILL heal, is subject of an additional sermon or message.

I must always remember that the main thrust of these Healing Meetings is to minister the love of God to people in prayers for them; although, of course, of greater importance than physical healing, is salvation of men. There are many great and eloquent preachers in the nation and abroad, I am obviously NOT one, but what I, together with the Meeting Partners, want to do is to, in one way (there are many ways), show the love of God, by being there to pray (& counsel) for those in need. And so, we did pray for 4 out of the 5 people who came to the Meeting. The 5th person was brother Terry Lai, who was NOT then in need of prayer; Terry himself heads up a fellowship, in Tuas, called Tuas Reachout Fellowship (TRF). I frequented those “once a month meetings” of Terry because they were and are reach-out meetings, focusing on reaching out to non-believers. Thank you, Terry, for coming to support our Healing Meeting.

All in all, we ministered to the 4 people in these areas (now, names are being left out intentionally. We will disclose only on consent): We prayed for spinal problem, injured arm (wrist), frozen shoulder, pain at the base of the neck spreading to the shoulders, and in proxy, for the mother of one of the attendee, for her liver condition (hardening). By way of visible manifestation, we had 2 out of 4 being slain by the Spirit. By the way, it does NOT mean that only slain people are being ministered by the Lord. But some people do get slain; and it is one of the tangible manifestations of the presence of the Spirit of God. I take encouragement that indeed the Lord was present by His Spirit, ministering to people. Holy Spirit, I thank you for your work in the session, and I continue to pray that you would continue to work on the conditions we have ministered to, till they have complete victory over their conditions and circumstances.

We encourage people to share their testimonies of God ministering or healing them, with others. Although we do NOT form doctrines and theology out of our experiences, the latter testifies to the truths of God, and it glorifies God. It is also a way of thanksgiving unto the Lord for His grace and favor upon you. So, in addition, to sharing with your friends and brothers and sisters, do consider letting us, know of God’s work on you, through our ministry to you, so that, with your permission, we could publish your testimonies, on this site to encourage others in their walk with the Lord.

Anthony Chia – Lord, I thank you for the 5-fold increase, and I continue to look forward to greater number of people coming to the Healing Meetings. Thank you for the work you done and are continuing to do with the “ministees”, and even, to us, your ministers. Despite it being called, “Anthony Chia’s Healing Meetings”, Lord, you know that, it is your meetings; so, may you continue to bless this ministry which the Meeting Partners and I have put together as a way to love our neighbours. May you continue to use it, more and more, to glorify your great and awesome name. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen.

PS: On 16th Nov 2011, the sister (E) with the injured wrist reported back through SMS that she was completely healed. She said, “In fact I golfed today and it is good and strong”. Hallelujah, praise the Lord.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

It is God can heal and God does heal (PART I)

2011-09-01T01:10:00.000-07:00

Preamble: This is 2-parts article, Part I (this article), we will cover God can heal. In Part II we will finish off with God does heal.

PART I – God can heal

It is NOT God MUST and WILL heal. If it is God must heal, then every time we pray, God MUST heal, and every sick will be healed. Our experience, even though we are NOT to rely wholesale on it, tells us that it is NOT true that God MUST and WILL heal. More importantly, we know from the Word of God that it is NOT God MUST heal. In my separate article, “People are NOT healed all the time, why we still pray”, I expounded that in short, the reason why NOT every sick is healed all the time, is because God did NOT promise unconditionally to heal every sick, in His Word. While there are many scriptures in the Word that support God heals, none is an unconditional promise. The further explanation to that, that God did NOT give such an unconditional promise, is that it is NOT part of the Lord’s redemptive works to FULLY redeem the body of a Man in his current living on earth. Full redemption of the body is to be had, only after we passed on or when Jesus returns (with rapture following), when we take on our incorruptible body. Since the Fall, it was never intended that Man will live forever and NOT die physically; rather Man is destined to die physically to take on the incorruptible body. If it is God MUST heal, then it is Man cannot die physically, and when Man cannot die physically, he will NOT be able to take on the incorruptible body, and the words of Jesus concerning the taking on, of our incorruptible body, will NOT come to pass. Of course, Jesus’ words MUST come to pass, and so, we must die physically.

Please don’t go round promising
We mustn’t go round promising that God MUST and WILL heal so-and-so. We mustn’t tell people that God heals every sick all the time, or we exaggerate our success at praying for the sick, to the extent that we have 100% success all the time. It does NOT edify, and you are NOT doing God a favor; rather you may put people off, for it is NOT a truth that every sick will get healed all the time.

It is God CAN heal and DOES heal
What is the difference? What is the difference between “God MUST and WILL heal” and “God CAN and DOES heal”? The difference is we do NOT misrepresent God, and we do NOT put people off. No one like to be misrepresented, it is the same with God. We should NOT put people off, because if people are put off, they may shut themselves from the gospel, and miss the salvation grace of God; we want to advance the gospel, NOT hinder it.

Temporal vs permanent
In fact, healing is only a temporal solution; God’s overarching desire is that a person be redeemed from the destiny of burning fire of Hell. Healing of a person of any sickness only enables the person to live another some tens of years of life on earth, but the redemption of our Lord, Jesus Christ, serves to grant eternal life, eternal living with God in Heaven. Receiving Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Saviour is far more important and is the permanent solution to Man’s fallen predicament.

The Word tells us that God CAN heal
Does the Word tell us that God could heal? If it does, how great is God’s capability to heal? Could He heal a virus infected fever? Could He heal the lame? Could He heal the blind? Could He heal the leprous? How about cancer? How about the demonized or even demon-possessed? How about bringing back to life a dead person? Could God do all of that and more? Did God do all of that and more? If we find from the Word that God did do all of that, and more, then it is at least showing that God is indeed a great Healer; He healed, and He CAN heal, unless He lost those powers or anointing or authority.

Below are from the Word, and they are more than enough to show that God CAN heal:

1. Who is God? Amongst others, scriptures tell us that God is God {Elohiym} (Gen 1:1; Jer 32:17 – nothing too hard; Luke 1:37 – nothing is impossible; Ps 115:3 - cannot be stopped, does as He pleases), God is the Creator (Gen 1:1), God is Almighty {El Shaddai} (Gen 17:1), God is Wisdom (Rom 11:33-36; James 1:5), God is the Healer (Jehovah Rapha} (Ex 15:26). Being such, can God NOT able to heal? It is more than reasonable to expect He CAN.

2. Examples of recorded healings from New Testament. From the simplest to the most difficult:

- Peter’s mother-in-law healed of fever (Matt 8:14): When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. (Matt 8:14)

- Paralyzed servant of “Centurion of great faith” healed (Matt 8:5-10, 13): 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” 7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” 8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour. (Matt 8:5-10,13)

- Blind Bartimaeus Received Sight (Mark 10:46-52): 46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. 51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.” 52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. (Mark 10:46-52)

- Many healed at one seating, the mute, crippled, lame, blind, etc (Matt 15:29-31): Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. (Matt 15:29-31).

- The “are you willing” leper healed (Matt 8:2-3): A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” 3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. (Matt 8:2-3).

- Demon-possessed daughter of a Gentile healed (we can pray for non-believers for healing) (Matt 15:22-28): A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matt 15:22-28).

- Lazarus raised from the Dead by Jesus (John 11:17, 38-44): 17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”
40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” (John 11:17, 38-44)

- Demons cast out and all sick THERE were healed (Matt 8:16-17): When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matt 8:16-17).

- Jesus healed all kinds of sicknesses and diseases (Matt 9:35): Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (Matt 9:35).

3. Some healings examples from Old Testament:

– Barrenness healed (Gen 20:17): “Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again” (Gen 20:17);

- God healed as a sign and wonder (Ex 4:7): “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh {no more leprous}. (Ex 4:7);

- Miriam healed of leprosy (Num 12:10, 13-14): 10 When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam—leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; 13 So Moses cried out to the LORD, “O God, please heal her!” 14 The LORD replied to Moses, “… Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back {healed}.” (Num 12:10, 13-14);

- Many healed of snake bites (Num 21:8-9): The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. (Num 21:8-9)

- Naaman Healed of Leprosy (2 Kings 5:1, 9-10, 14): 1 Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy. 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of {prophet} Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. (2 Kings 5:1,9-10,14)

- King Hezekiah healed and given another 15 years of life (2 Kings 20:1-6): 1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.” 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 “Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 “Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.(2 Kings 20:1-6)

- Elijah raised the Zarephath widow’s son from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22): 17 Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. 19 “Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. 20 Then he cried out to the LORD, “O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?” 21 Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this boy’s life return to him!” 22 The LORD heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. (1 Kings 17:17-22)

- Elisha raised a Shunammite woman’s son from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35): 32 When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. 33 He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. 34 Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy’s body grew warm. 35 Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.(2 Kings 4:32-35)

- A dead resurrected by touching Elisha’s bones of old (2 Kings 13:21): Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.(2 Kings 13:21)

4. No loss of powers, anointing or authority. Nowhere in scriptures was there a recording of any loss of powers, anointing or authority of God to heal and to perform signs and wonders and miracles. The conclusion can only be one – God is still with all those powers, anointing and authority to heal and to perform miracles.

Conclusion
From the above, it is clear that God CAN heal, and He did heal, and there was no loss of powers, anointing or authority to heal, meaning we can still expect God CAN heal.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – God, you are Jehovah Rapha, God the Healer. Your name tells of you, of who you are. Jesus, when you walked the earth, you healed sicknesses of every kind and delivered people from demonic oppression and possession; and you said that for those who believe, greater works would they do, meaning for us who believe, we too, can pray for the sick to be healed and the oppressed freed. Lord, help us in our unbelief, so that your will be done, just the Father’s will was done by you, Lord Jesus, in your time on earth. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

We are without excuse

2011-08-17T02:15:00.000-07:00

For the invisible things of him {God} from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they {men} are without excuse {for NOT acknowledging God}. (Romans 1:20, KJV).

God’s defence, just look at creation
This verse is used to show how God can hold “innocent”, “uninformed” people accountable for NOT acknowledging Him as the God of the universe. Essentially, the verse gives God the defence for ultimately acting against men who acknowledged Him NOT.

The invisible can be seen from the created visible
This verse is saying we cannot claim innocence by arguing that we cannot see the invisible things of God, like His power and the Godhead. The verse is saying from the visible things, i.e. from His Creation of the world, the invisible things of God, including such things as His eternal power and divine nature (including, Godhead ), can be understood.

In what way is it really so, that from Creation (of the world), we could have understood of the invisible things of God, including such things as His eternal power and divine nature (godhead)?

Eternal power can be understood
The verse said from the things made in Creation, one can tell God’s eternal power, NOT just power, but eternal power. The point is that things created including such things as the heavens and skies; such existed from the beginning; in other words, it was NOT that it was ever Man was earlier, and then, such things as heavens and skies were created. Putting it in another way, nothing ever created by Man, as idols or gods, could have created such things as the heaven and the skies, including all the celestial bodies. That is why the verse even point to “eternal” power and NOT just power. In other words, there was already a “power” before Man came into being, being worked to produce the heavens and skies, and all of the universe. There was power executed from ever, ever, ever before Man. And today, after a long, long, long time, there are still the heavens and the skies, and all the celestial bodies; pointing to indeed, NOT just power but eternal power of the being, God. Ps 19:1-6 is an example of scripture passages telling us God’s such creation:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat. (Ps 19:1-6)

That was why the Apostle Paul went on to state, in verses 22 & 23 of Romans 1, that unbelieving men were fools, even though they might think they were wise, because they exchanged the glory of the eternal God (creation of the world pointed to the glory of God) with images/idols men made; what is made subsequent, cannot be responsible for the creation that came before, can it! Of course, NOT; what futility of mind when men acknowledge NOT God (neither glorifying Him or giving Him thanks {v21}).

God’s divine nature evident from Creation
Even God’s divine nature has all along being evident in His Creation, even the divine aspect of the Godhead. How best can one express this divine aspect of the Godhead? I will use the phrase, “harmonic threesome” to describe it; it is one with three, and three in one, and existing in perfect harmony. In other words, we should be able to find many fine examples in creation pointing to such a harmonic threesome existing in the Godhead. Before we look at the examples, of course, I must point out the harmonic threesome in the Godhead is referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I will now mention a few harmonic threesomes in the created universe to illustrate that creation is pointing (pointing, NOT equal) to the Godhead, and we are without excuse to have NOT noticed any of it.

Firstly, we look at the harmonic threesome of the universe: the universe, in essence, is of space, matter and time, with each permeating and representing the whole. In fact, the universe is looked upon by scientists as a space-matter-time continuum.

If you like, you can do a parallel between the harmonic threesome of the universe and the triune Godhead; it will go like this: Space (like the Father) is the invisible, omnipresent background of everything. Matter (like the Son) reveals the universe (like the Godhead) visibly, the understandable form. Time (like the Spirit) is the entity by which the universe (like the Godhead) becomes applicable and understandable in events and experience. In Mathematical representation, one way of expressing the harmonic threesome is “1=1 x 1 x 1” – one with three and three in one.

Secondly, we can look within time itself, and we again see a form of harmonic threesome at work. Time is future, present and past. The future is the unseen of time, manifest moment-by-moment in the present, experienced and understood in the past; and time is a past-present-future continuum.

Thirdly, we turn to that which is closer to heart, Man; Man is body, soul and spirit, again a harmonic threesome, working together. Like time is a “component” of universe, we can zoom in, and look at the body, a “component” of Man, and we will find some more examples of such harmonic threesome in place, in the body; these would include, for examples, the 3-parts arms or legs of Man, even the 3-parts fingers!

Creation as a parabolē
Please understand that I am NOT here saying such reasonable deductions of eternal power creation and presence of harmonic threesomes are proving all of what God is; rather what I am saying is that Romans 1:20 is pointing to Creation as a kind of parabolē (Greek word for parable) of God. Proper interpretation of a parable is that the metaphor (Creation, in this case) points to certain aspects of the object (God, in this case), and it is NOT the metaphor is equated as the object, or we should NOT be literally looking at every aspect of the metaphor, NOT referred to, in a parable, and said that the object must be like that (in all aspects), as well. In fact, even in the relevant aspects, the likeness is only metaphorical, NOT identical.

We pattern after God, NOT the other way round
Another way of putting it is that there is a patterning of the metaphor of certain aspects of the object, and is NOT the other way round. For example, on the subject of begetting, just because begetting in Man suggested a counterpart, it does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit is a female. It also does NOT mean that since there is the Father, and the Son, there must be the Mother, or that the Holy Spirit is the Mother or the Holy Spirit must be a female. We are created in the image of God, we are a creation given a certain manner of multiplication in numbers or pro-creation, but it does NOT mean that when we, as a child, have father and mother, it necessarily means that the Triune is Father, Son and Mother. We have to be very careful in using Romans 1:20 to back our argument for saying, erroneously, that the Holy Spirit is the Mother or is female, for God is gender-neutral (Those interested in understanding of the gender-neutrality of God, can read my separate article – “God is gender-neutral, He is spirit”).

Please pardon me for being crude; that God created man to shit the way we shit does NOT mean that God likewise shit the way we shit or even shit at all. We are His creation, created in His image, in some respect, we pattern after God, but God does NOT pattern after us.

I am NOT saying there is no relevance of Romans 1:20 even in a matter of shitting. This is how I will look at it: Wow! Look how wonderfully the whole digestive system of man is. We consume food by the mouth; the food passes through our body, yet is still outside of our body. Various secretions come out of our body to digest the food; and the nutrients then get absorbed into our body, leaving the waste, which passes along, without its decay hurting the lining of our body, and eventually leave our body in controlled fashion. How can such a system just happened, someone must have “engineered” it. How great are His wisdom and knowledge! What great power He has! And that someone, is the Divine God. This is how men are without excuse; not because we shit, God also must shit!

Conclusion
How can we NOT recognise God in what have been created? Creation has been declaring the glory and majesty of God. By observing how specific and exact the interworking of all of creation, one can only come to the conclusion that there is a God, right from the beginning.

God's glory is displayed by the things around us. God's invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature are shown to us in how we are made, in the world in which we live, and the universe surrounding us. God has made himself clearly known to us. All of humankind is without an excuse before Him, because enough aspects of who He is, has been revealed in Creation.

Much like examining an art work reveals aspects of the artist, looking at our world reveals to a certain extent God’s nature. The size and expanse of the universe and the uniformity of its physical laws clearly reveal God’s power and authority over all creation, and the extraordinary complexity and ingenuity of life reveal God’s indescribable intelligence and wisdom.

In fact, Science has shown that details of earth’s design and natural processes were perfectly crafted for the benefit of life; had our planet were of a different size or resided at a different distance from the sun or if liquid water was not present or light traveled at a different speed, life might NOT exist.

Therefore, people who deny God’s existence cannot claim ignorance, since they must actively ignore the voice of nature all around them (Ps 19:4)

While Romans 1:20 pointed to the conclusion that we have just stated, we still have to remember that creation only testifies to her Creator, God. Such testimonies were and are enough for Men to acknowledge God. Regardless of the Word, there were enough grounds for God to expect men to acknowledge Him, by glorifying Him and by giving Him thanksgiving.

With the Word, the facts about God and truths of God are further revealed to us. In other words, doctrines and theologies concerning God are in the Word, and from the Word. Creation and manifestations, events or experiences only testify to facts and truths of the Word. Since given the Word, men are expected to properly handle the Word, and NOT forming doctrines and theologies from creation, manifestations, events or experiences, per se. May this, also be a timely reminder for all, even as we recognize that, just from looking at His Creation, we are already without excuse of NOT acknowledging Him.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions - Lord, may more of your children realised that they have to go pass mere acknowledgment of you from their viewing of your Creation, and move into understanding you through your given written Word, and even further, through a personal relationship with you while according to you the highest reverence, for you are NOT just Father, NOT just Creator, but is first of all, the Holy Almighty God.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

He is NOT just Father

2011-08-11T18:40:00.000-07:00

Many Christians have heard and even they themselves mouthing the same, “Christianity is about relationship with God”; yet I wonder how many of us actually seriously viewed our Christian faith in that way. Or do we regard Christianity, solely, as about our relationship with the Father. I suspect over-stressing of the good nature of the Father-personhood of God, has contributed much complacency in our handling of our relationship with God. The over-stressing of the Father-personhood of God as the prime personhood attribute of God, in itself, has also indirectly caused many to form incorrect posture in relation to our relationship with God. I am NOT saying Father-personhood is NOT a personhood attribute of God; indeed it is one of the more important personhood attribute of God, yet it is NOT the most fundamental personhood attribute, in my understanding of God. God is first of all, God! That is the most fundamental personhood of God; let us all NOT forget that.

What is wrong with the Father-personhood view!
No, there is nothing wrong with that. What I am saying is that God is attributed with multiple personhoods, and the Father-personhood is but one of the several personhoods, like God is first of all God, God is Creator, God is Father, God is Lord, God is Savior, God is King, God is Master, God is Friend, and God is Brother (by Jesus Christ).

Once we viewed God with a mono personhood view, our perspective of God is more likely to be incomplete or prone to defectiveness. Before I comment on the Father-personhood, let me illustrate what I mean using the Savior-personhood attribute. The Free Grace Christians, for example, have, as a core doctrine, that when they give over their lives to Jesus, they only accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, NOT necessarily accepted Jesus as their Lord. They hold onto a doctrine called the Separation of Salvation and Lordship. I have previously written a 2-part series on this fallacy of Separation of Salvation and Lordship. The series can be accessed from: Luke 6:46 - PART I – Salvation and Lordship are together. When we only take in the Savior-personhood, and drop the Lord-personhood, we get a grossly incorrect picture of God; and our calling of God, “Lord, Lord” would sound to God like what was stated in Luke 6:46 – “Why do you call me, “Lord, Lord” and do not do what I say?”

Concerning the Father-personhood perspective, if one views God solely from that angle, one is prone to be too strongly and negatively influenced by the person’s own experience with his earthly father (or even his own experience as an earthly father). The point is that we must be aware that our experience with our earthly father is likely to colour our lenses of viewing God, if we are NOT careful. One of the most important perspectives we must bear in mind, is that “We pattern after God, NOT the other way round”. In my separate article, “God is gender-neutral, He is spirit”, by way of a “crude” example, under the section captioned by the same “We pattern after God, NOT the other way round, I pointed how Romans 1:20 should NOT be misinterpreted. You may want to read it, for a good laugh or be upset with the crude example used!

The thrust of above paragraph, and that of the article referred to, is that we cannot form doctrines and theologies out of our experiences, but that we are to understand God through doctrines and theologies formed solely from the Word of God. Our experiences are to be used to testify to the doctrines and theologies, and that was why they are called testimonies. Because we live in this fallen world, some of our experiences, including those of our experiences with our earthly father are NOT correctly testifying to the personhood of God, including such as God’s fatherhood towards us. So, if one is concentrating too much on the Father-personhood alone, and lacks proper spiritual feeding on the Bread of Life (the Word), the wholesome perspective of God is difficult to be had by the person, and that being the case, his posture of his relationship with God, likewise, suffers from the same lack of wholesome perspective.

Understand, but don’t blame your earthly father?
Do NOT blame your earthly father; that is NOT the thrust of this article. Understanding God gives us an understanding of the imperfection of our earthly fathers, but such understanding is NOT bullet for you and I, to blame our fathers, rather it is so that we can attempt to improve the relationship with our fathers, even as we improve ours with the heavenly Father. And for those of us, men, it is also to help us to understand our current or future role as fathers to our children.

Not a teaching on the fatherhood of God
The purpose of this article is NOT to teach on fatherhood of God, and so, you will only see little of that; it is my intention that we have to recognize that God must be viewed as attributed with multiple personhoods (in addition to being with multiple nature-hoods, like holiness, love, faithfulness, etc).

It is also NOT possible for me to point out all the tendencies from our earthly relationship with our fathers that would color our lenses negatively with regard to our relationship with the heavenly Father. I will just speak on one or two such tendencies, to illustrate; the rest is really depending on how you understand your relationship with your father – the “lack” or “defectiveness” in that relationship, and what you can glean from the Word concerning what God said as concerning Himself as the Father to us.

He does NOT mind, He is my Father!
Whether He will mind or NOT must be understood from His Word, but NOT from our experience with our earthly fathers. Today’s upbringing in family is often such that children are given so much liberty that more often than NOT, they take their fathers (or even mothers) for granted, opening up the children to assume that we, the fathers, do NOT mind. It could be that we, fathers, should have minded, but have NOT minded, and so, the fault is ours, and children just developed to be complacent; or we, fathers, mind but did NOT put up firm enough stand, that the children just thought that they could cross the line, and get away with it. It can also be simply that the children are being disobedient, and we, fathers, just indulged them, leading to the children taking for granted that the fathers did NOT really mind, even the cleaning of the mess after them.

In the Asian context, where I am, previously, in my generation (as children) and before, our fathers hardly showed us love physically, like hugging us, and even playing with us, past the first few years (as toddlers). Love came to us, often as the provision of the basic man’s need, of food, clothing and shelter; and as instructional love, such as father instructing the children, and putting us to school to be educated; essentially, the “soft” touches were missing, a lot of the time. Now, in my generation as father, I find that fathers might have engaged in, too much “soft” love, and too little on the “hard” love of our fathers, i.e. we failed to instruct when we should have instructed, we should have corrected the child but we did NOT; overall, giving rise to our children NOT only, not shown enough due respect for us, fathers, they lack grace in society. It is even NOT wrong to say, many young people, today, live in the “Mind” and “Don’t Mind” mindset; they mind, and mind tremendously when it comes to their interests being infringed or threatened, and they don’t mind when it is other people’s interest at stake, and it all started from the home, from dysfunctional father-children mentoring and relationship.

A simple illustration is this: if nice food, which your children like, is before them, do they or do they NOT, think about leaving a piece for you to eat, or do they just eat them all? If they do eat them all, what do you think went on in their head; what were they thinking? Dad wouldn’t mind? Dad could get some on his own, any time? Dad would let me eat them all, anyway! Or they just do NOT think anything at all!

We can substitute the nice food with something else; if it is chores, of course, it flips the other way round, leave everything for Dad to do, he wouldn’t mind! Do you approach God the Father, that way? Do you take Him for granted, thinking that the Father would NOT mind? Not giving Him of your time, ok; or is it He would NOT mind, He knows you are “busy”? A little sin here, and a little sin there, is ok; He wouldn’t mind? Never mind, you do NOT need to do as you are told, He can always do it Himself or get someone else to do it; He will understand you have other “things” to do? You say, “Don’t mind”, because he is your earthly father? What if he is your boss? Sure, NOT many people are having as the office boss, their father, but God is your Father, and He is your Boss, NOT just your Boss, but the Big Boss. Think about it, the next time you are about to take Him for granted.

Is it alright to come to the Father, dirty?
I once released a word of knowledge concerning coming to worship God, ahead of a worship school (of several days) organized by the church. The word which I sensed I received was a need for people to seek the Lord for cleansing of their sins, and to stay clean in coming to worship God. This was in my earlier days of moving in the words of knowledge and prophecy, at a time that I had still to go over the word with my Senior Pastor, before I could release the word to the congregation.

At the time of relating the word to my Senior Pastor, the invited speaker for that church service, was right besides the Senior Pastor. When I was told to release the word, as I related it to the head of the church, I went ahead, but to my surprise, when the speaker took to the pulpit, he began to use an example of his own kid, being dirty (ice-cream all over, or something like that), and approaching him when he, the speaker, then was painting the interior of his house, to hit at my word of knowledge, with himself, focusing his eyes on me (I was seated in the 1st row). He said he yelled for his wife, but his wife did NOT come for the dirty kid, and he got down from the ladder that he, the speaker, was on, and picked up the kid, and continued on with his painting job, apparently (That day was before the worship school, and it was a church service, NOT the worship school session, but the head of the team to minister at the school, had arrived ahead, and was given the chance to speak at the weekend service).

Apparently, by his illustration using his own dirty kid, he was saying that God welcomes worshipers as we are, dirty or NOT. Now, this speaker erred on several counts (my views do NOT represent the view of the church; I am NOT aware of any stand that the church took concerning this; only that I was gracious and humble enough to have NOT confronted the speaker):

One, the speaker has no respect for the Senior Pastor, as the head of the church who invited him. Now, he was right there when I cleared my word with the Senior Pastor. To openly come against that word, since it was released with the approval of the Senior Pastor, was surely out of line.

Two, he, the speaker, being a church leader himself, coming from a spirit-filled church, and have had the experience of seeing many learning to operate in the spiritual gifts, and he, himself, was here to equip the church, and others in the nation in the school of supernatural worship, ought to have known a “L-plate” prophet was at work; must he do what he did, censoring over the pulpit!

Three, the speaker, in my view, had grown in haughtiness, and began to form his own theology of out of his own experience. It was NOT just that he shared using his dirty kid as an illustration that pointed to that, I believe it was his successes in coming into high praise and worship unto God with manifestation from God, that he began to postulate everyone could come as he was (without reverence). Clearly, the Word of God does NOT prescribe such a posture (complacency and irreverence) in coming to worship God.

Needless to say, I was hurt, so hurt that I had to complain him to God, and that night I complained to God concerning the speaker. I told God I just did my job to honor Him, and deserved NOT such rebuke over the pulpit. The speaker could have just expressed his disagreement privately. Furthermore, I was NOT wrong. The word was NOT wrong, and I did nothing wrong, I sought agreement by the head of church before releasing. I told God vindication belongs to Him, and I was letting go of the hurt, for I could NOT operate bearing resentment and unforgiveness.

To cut the story short, the speaker went back home before the worship school ended, and another from the team took his place, and this another was an anointed worship minister of the Lord, and in his preaching to the church after the end of the school, at weekend church services, he said almost word for word what I have prophesied previously, although he was NOT present when I released the word; and so, I have been vindicated! This second minister was full of humility, and sincerity to bless; he was loved by the church congregation, and he had continued to be invited for the last few years to minister in our longer term supernatural school of ministry.

Allow me to do a second sharing of one account related by this second minister, let me called him DMC, who came back to minister at our weekend church services recently, before I put down a couple of lessons that we can learn from these 2 accounts. DMC related this: He knew of a mighty servant of God in Asia who moved powerfully in supernatural works of God, but as time went by, the servant began to slide into immorality, and before long his immoral life-style was known to the church leadership, and he was approached to stop his life-style and to repent before God. According to DMC, this servant refused, citing that his life-style was NOT disapproved by God, for God was still performing signs and wonders and miracles through him. But the church leadership went back to the Word, and by the Word of God, what the servant was engaged in was wrong; and they collectively decided to again approach the servant, insisting that he stopped and repented, and threatened to withdraw their blessings on the supernaturally performing servant. Again, the servant refused, and the church leadership prayed to withdraw their blessings from the servant. Guess what; the miracles ceased; the servant was NO longer able to move in the supernatural anointing.

These few things become clearer by the 2 accounts above:
One, viewing our relationship with God as solely as a relationship with the Father, can give rise to, too narrow a perspective of God, and can give rise to us acting in ways NOT pleasing to God. In fact, the failure to recognize that God is attributed with multiple personhoods, and multiple nature-hoods, can give rise to us NOT pleasing God, and stumbling others.

Two, if we view our relationship with God solely as a relationship to the Father, we are more prone to our experiences creeping in to color our lenses of how we should behave, and get the better of us.

Three, we pattern after God, NOT the other way round. So, the safest approach is to base everything on the Word of God; when in doubt, go back to the Word. I repeat: doctrines and theologies are to come solely from the Word; experiences serve to testify to the truths of the Word.

Four, the spiritual gifts of God are NOT necessarily irrevocable. Be careful of mistranslation and misinterpretation of Romans 11:29. The message of Romans 11:29 should be gifts of God is without repentance, and NOT irrevocable; for a full exposition of this, read my April 2010 article, “It may be wrong to say that God’s spiritual gifts are irrevocable”. The 2nd account above actually testified to my interpretation of Romans 11:29 as NOT referring to spiritual gifts of God cannot be revoked. By the way, DMC was sharing how he viewed that, when we are serving, we could be serving with the blessing and anointing of the church, in other words, there can be a corporate dimension to spiritual gifting, a concept I too subscribe too, which you can read my article on Romans 11:29, given in this paragraph; God can take the gift off you, and give it to another, within the body; corporately it is still there, individually it is being removed from the person.

Before I move on to another tendency, let me say that I am NOT saying God will NOT accept your praise and worship; what I am saying is that we do what pleases Him. God does have expectations on us, different on different ones, and different at different times and seasons. What the Word prescribes, we do; that is the way to go.

I can always come back later, counting on the Father-son kinship!
A Father-son kinship is forever, it is always there; I can always fall back on it later; this is another tendency of us, if you subscribe to it, you run the risk of your luck run out on you.

Don’t you think such an attitude is not much different from a non-believer who has come to understand the gospel, but does NOT want to choose to believe, but still wants an insurance policy, just in case, the gospel was really true (understand and believe are separate matters, I hope you know that), and so, just go through the motion of saying the Sinner’s Prayer, especially the gospel was revealed to him as simply as, “You just need to say the Sinner’s Prayer, and you will be saved forever.” Entering into salvation is NOT like taking up an insurance policy! It is NOT in case you go to Hell, Jesus saves you; it is you are surely going to Hell unless Jesus saves you. Some others, though understood the gospel, but would NOT do such a thing, but they were unable to “let go of the world”, and had wanted to “enjoy the world”; and thought to themselves, they would come into salvation in the nick of time in the future, to save themselves. Yes, they postponed the receiving of Jesus. For a believer, if you likewise rely on the Father-son tie, think that you can do what you want, and then in the nick of time in the future, to come back to the Father thinking that He will accept you on account of you are already His son, you better be sure, you have more than superb timing. If a non-believer can miss it, and die without entry into salvation, so can a believer miss the chance to come back to the Father.

It is naïve to think that just because you are a son of God, you can do what you want. Mind you, I am also a son of God, so are Peter, John, Ah Kow, Ali, and so many millions and millions of people; in fact everyone who is a believer or a Christian is a son. Do you think you, as a son, can plunder another man, another son of God? Even if the man is NOT a believer and therefore NOT a son of God, you mean you can do what you like with him? It cannot be. But you may say, “But I am NOT necessarily be wronging another when I ignored my relationship with the Father in the meantime.” When you ignored the relationship, you are likely to be NOT walking in the light, and when you are NOT walking in the light, you are wandering in the darkness, and when you wander long enough there, you will fall, and you will wrong another, whether or NOT you realize it or NOT.

I am a Chinese, and we Chinese have a saying, “The King’s son shall face the same punishment if he breaks the law”, meaning you do NOT escape punishment because you are the King’s son. There is such a concept as true son of God in the Bible; do you know that? Who are the sons and who are the true sons of God? Very briefly, Heb 12:8 says this: “If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.” What are you doing if you ignore or opt out of the relationship? You are taking yourself out of the Father’s discipline. The verse says that, then, you have become an illegitimate son! Romans 8:13-14 says this: “13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.”

The Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Father God is the “living law”, only when you are led by it, you are the (true) sons of God. Many naïve Christians argue that there are no more laws in this era of grace. The Old Covenant does NOT apply anymore; the Mosaic Law or The Law, as a whole, does NOT apply anymore, BUT laws, commands and precepts are NOT done away with. It is crazy that people portray the era of grace brought in by our Lord as the era of law-less-ness! No, it is just that the laws are NOT necessarily written in ink, they are in the Holy Spirit, the “living law” I call it; we no longer live by the written law as such, we live by the living law, the Holy Spirit (Another day, maybe I will put up an article on this, the place of laws, Holy Spirit and love in the gospel).

When we stay away from the Father-son relationship, i.e. when we opt out of the discipline of God, we are saying we are NOT going to listen to the Holy Spirit (Who adopted you? The Holy Spirit) whom God placed in us to reveal to us what we are to do and NOT to do, in other words, we are NOT wanting the Holy Spirit to let us know the law applicable for the moment; do you know how dangerous that is? Read Romans 8:13 again.

Those who argue that we do NOT need to be concerned, for the Parable of the Return of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) was indicating that the father was very forgiving, and even longing for the wayward son to return. They forgot one thing, the father was longing, but the son had to decide to come back and actually made his way back. Yes, the robe, ring and sandals (v22) meant a restoration of the son to full dignity and authority, back to a true son, which meant before that, when the young man was away from the father, he was without the same dignity and authority. You want to be without dignity and authority? You may be deceived and be trampled upon, even devoured, you know!

What if I could overcome the incorrect tendencies?
Even if you could overcome all the incorrect tendencies from a mono father-son view, still you will NOT have as nearly a complete picture of God as one who views God as one attributed with multiple personhoods and multiple nature-hoods. There are some important aspects of God, NOT discernable from the Father figure; for example, holiness is NOT, and majesty, being omnipotent and wisdom are NOT necessarily.

What is the more excellent way?
Understand first of all, God is attributed with multiple personhoods and multiple nature-hoods. Learn from the Word, the various personhoods of God; and the various nature-attributes of God. It is NOT necessary to rank all of the personhoods and nature-hoods in hierarchy, but it is important that we know the number one or highest attribute in each of the 2 categories.

The fundamental in the personhood category is “God is God”. What is meant is that there is none like Him, one and only one, and He is the greatest, strongest, almighty, omnipotent, sovereign, He is wisdom, deserving all homage, what He says is law (hello, how many believers do NOT realize this, when they erroneously claim that there is no more law in the era of grace). This is who God is, first of all, and we must approach with reverence. If He signals He is coming to us (on occasions) as a Friend, well, that is fine, but it is He decides, NOT us.

Although, it is NOT my intention to cover nature-attributes of God here, let me just briefly say that the most fundamental in nature-attributes of God is holiness (NOT love, as believed by many); if you do NOT get this top nature-attribute right, it is even more difficult for you to understand some difficult passages in Scriptures, like, “Why the Flood?” In fact, to understand our faith more, we need to secure key understandings in a number of areas, including the followings: About God, about Man, about the Fall of Man and about the Gospel. On my blog, there are insightful articles under such captions, and I welcome you to read them, at your leisure, to gain some of the key understandings.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Father God, you know I do NOT mean to demean those who love you as their Father. But it is my hope that more would give you the honor due you, The God Almighty. Seeing you as our Father is NOT big enough, we must acknowledge you as The God of ALL. It is also my desire to point to, as I have revealed in brief, that you are NOT just The God Almighty, you are The Holy God Almighty; and so, we must accept, ultimately, you can only love us unto righteousness. God, it is NOT that I have arrived, you know that, and I know that, but your holiness, I must declare. Amen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

You need faith, and you need love

2011-08-03T20:42:00.000-07:00

One of the things I do regularly is to go over the articles I wrote on this blog. I must say it was NOT uncommon for me to marvel at the some of the understandings expressed in the articles; how could I have arrived at them, and in those moments. I would be truly humbled for I knew the understandings were NOT from me; it was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that such understandings came. Because I believe such were from the Lord, NOT only for my readers, but for me, I must want to go over and over the same that the Lord had revealed.

Of course, what is revelation to one may NOT be to another, for he might have already known such understandings or truths or have had illuminations from the Holy Spirit. In any case, whether it is my own articles or the Word itself, as a follower of Christ Jesus, I must feed and re-feed on the Bread of Life which is our spiritual food. It is a misconception to regard the Bread of Life as that which we take once, and we will no longer need to take anymore.

While once taken, the Bread of Life does satisfy a certain hunger in us, and that certain hunger being the hunger to identify with God, the spirit man in us still needs to be fed regularly, much like the physical man needs to eat, physically. That I have the Bread of Life, I do NOT go round looking for another god, I have been satisfied, but I am to feed on the Bread given to me, and that is what I will do for the whole of my Christian life. What about you? Think about it, if you do NOT eat physically, you will become weak, if you do NOT feed spiritually, won’t you also be weak? May this encourage you to feed your spirit on a regular basis.

Today, I re-read this article of mine, “If I have not love (no love), I am nothing”. It is the conclusion from 1 Cor 13:2.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

What struck me was that even with a faith that can move mountains, I am nothing, if I have no love to go along with the faith! We know Scripture (Heb 11:6) said that without faith it is impossible to please God; and so, if I am with faith, and I act in faith, wouldn’t it please God, and so, it should NOT count as nothing, right? This verse of Paul today is telling me that there is faith, and there is love. I believe I already had the revelation of what faith is, but it did NOT particularly occur to me that in the definition of faith, there is NOT the element of love, although of course, God is love. It becomes clear that if faith is an ingredient, love is another. Without faith it is impossible to please God, but with faith it NOT necessarily that God is pleased; love is needed. As I pondered about this, I believed I was being guided to this verse, Gal 5:6 -

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Gal 5:6).

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. There, it said it all: acting in faith is to be done through love. Indeed the more excellent way is: act in faith with love.

Afterwards, another scripture came to mind, all of a sudden – “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13). Indeed, faith and love are separate items, and in ministry, both are required. So, the next time, for my ministry, I shall NOT just think so much about faith, but also, love, even though it was NOT that I have never been thinking about love and compassion being needed for ministry, otherwise I would NOT have penned the article above. But perhaps, it is the Lord’s refining works for me, and my ministry, on the edge of my wanting to launch my ministry into a new frontier, that He reveals what He would like to see.

Would you pray with me as I plan to conduct healing meetings to minister the Word and love of God to those around? It will be a bold step; very bold step indeed, for one without appointment by men, and relying solely on God to come to minister.

When the date draws nearer for the first of such meetings, I will let you all know.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, I am apprehensive, yet I am willing to be a fool for you; yet, at the same time, I trust you will honor me as I honor you, and act in faith with love for you and for my fellow men. In the mighty name of Jesus Christ, I profess. Amen. Dated this 12 Jul 2011.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

God knows man through his spirit, and God knows me through His Spirit

2011-07-27T21:25:00.000-07:00

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? (1 Cor 2:11a)

Man is tripartite, i.e. he is body, soul and spirit. Read my separate article, “Man is body, soul and spirit”, for understanding.

The soul, the real you
Who is the “real” me or “real” you? When we say, the real me or real you, in effect, we are referring to our souls, for you are different from me because our souls are different; the elements of reason, emotion, and desire or passion which together made up the personality, are different for you and me. The real you is NOT referring to the physical you, or the real me is NOT referring to the physical me.

Our spirit differentiates us from animals and plants
In a way, we know very little about the spirit of ours; we only know that, unlike the animals and plants, both of which, have body (form) and soul (life or incorporeal essence), we have been given a spirit, on top of the life principal (soul) and form (body), meaning we are a very different life-form from animals and plants.

The thoughts of Man come from his soul
Because the soul comprises personality elements, the thoughts of a man, come from his soul (the personality elements of animals and plants are perhaps different, and so, although animals and plants are of souls, their souls are different from souls of men). How come we can be that sure, personality is of the soul? I think no one would argue with us when we have implied that personality is quite separate from the body, form or flesh; but why do we say they are of the soul? I believe it is NOT wrong to say we can look at animals which are of NO spirits, and yet with “personality”, and extend it to Man, and accordingly, say man’s personality is coming from his soul makeup.

It is the spirit of Man, additionally, knows the thoughts of Man
The thoughts of a man come from his soul. The soul, therefore, knows its own thoughts. I believe it is ridiculous to say that the soul of a man does NOT know its own thoughts. Therefore, I believe what verse 11 above was really saying was this: apart from the soul of a man who knows the thoughts of that man, another who knows is, NOT another man, but the spirit of that man, and that spirit is within him. This spirit of man is NOT referring to the Holy Spirit; as I have already pointed out in my tripartite man article above, Man has a spirit – he is created, body, soul and spirit (tripartite); his spirit was given him by God at the time of creation of Man.

Any clue how God knows the thoughts of Man?
Verse 11 above establishes for us that, it is the spirit of the man that knows the thoughts of the man (the soul). But how does God know the thoughts of man? Did the Bible leave us any clue? To me, this verse helps:

The spirit of man is the candle {or lamp} of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly. (Prov 20:27, KJV)

I believe this is the interpretation of this proverb verse: Because the spirit of man knows the thoughts of man (1 Cor 2:11a {our opening verse}), it (the spirit of man) becomes God’s eyes of understanding of the man (the soul). Through the spirit of man, God is able to look into the innermost part of Man’s seat of mental faculties (historically, the core of the soul was understood to be in the innermost part of the belly of man). This is how God knows the very thoughts of man. God does NOT need a man to be a believer, to have the Holy Spirit in him, to know the thoughts of the man. Because Man is with a spirit, God who is spirit, is able to know the thoughts of all men, right from the beginning of creation. Therefore, I can say, as a Man, God knows me through my spirit.

The Fallen Man and the Regenerate Man (a believer)
Is there a difference for the fallen Man and the regenerate Man? Where then does the Holy Spirit fit in? This is what Romans 8:27 says:

And he {God} who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will (Rom 8:27, KJV)

The exposition for this verse is like this: First, we need to understand what the “heart” is, here. The Greek word used was G2588, "kardia"; and its meaning is similar to “innermost part of the belly” as used by the Hebrew, like in the Prov 20:27, we saw earlier. It is the very centre of the soul where the elements of the soul like reasoning, emotion and desire or passion are centered. So, when it was said here that God who searched the centre of the soul, it was actually referring to God who searched through His lamp, the spirit of man, to know (the thoughts of) the man; He (God) knows the mind of the Spirit. The Spirit here was referring to the Holy Spirit whom God placed in our heart, the same, very centre of the soul. Where does it say, in Scripture, that God placed the Holy Spirit in our very centre of our soul (“heart” or “innermost part of the belly”)? It was written in 2 Cor 1:22 and Gal 4:6 –

{God} set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor 1:22). Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (Gal 4:6)

The heart here, in both the verses, was the same “heart” G2588 (kardia), we saw in Romans 8:27. A point to note is that frequently, when Scriptures referred to the heart, it is NOT referring to the physical heart – the biological pump!

What Romans 8:27 was implying is this: For non-believers, God knows the thoughts of man through His lamp, the spirit of man. How does a Gentile able to come to become a believer? In the Apostle Peter’s words: “And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them {the Gentiles} the Holy Ghost {Peter saw the manifestations}, even as [he did] unto us {Jews}.” (Acts 15:8, KJV). The Apostle was saying God knew the heart of the Gentile. In the manner that it was used here, Gentiles basically refer to non-believers, for the Gentiles then, were the ones NOT knowing God (the Jews taken to know God, for they were God’s people). So, I repeat, for the non-believers, God knows the thoughts of man through His lamp, the spirit of man.

For believers, whom He had placed His own Spirit, the Holy Spirit, in the very centre of man’s soul, God knows through the Holy Spirit, through the latter’s communion with the man’s spirit. Because the Spirit communes with man’s spirit at the very centre of the soul, the Spirit knows the thoughts of the man (or the meditations of his heart {G2588}), and is therefore, able and does intercede for the believers (or saints) in accordance with God’s will. For believers, God knows directly through the (mind of) indwelling Holy Spirit because the Spirit intercedes or petitions to God (concerning the saint’s condition, his spirited soul condition).

Just as our spirit knows our thoughts, the Holy Spirit also knows God’s will
As a side, the Apostle Paul also explained how the Holy Spirit can know how to intercede for the believers according to the will of God. In 1 Cor 2:11, he said this:

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:11)

Just like the spirit of man would know the thoughts of a man, it is the Spirit of God who would know the thoughts of God, and therefore, the will of God. And by knowing the will of God, the Spirit knows how to intercede for the believers, on knowing the condition of the spirited soul of the believer.

Summary
What understandings did we receive? We now know firstly, Man is NOT just soul and body, Man is with a spirit given by God at Creation. In other words, Man is a spirited soul (if you still do NOT get this, read the Tripartite Man article). The elements of the soul combined to define the personality of a person; the soul is the person. The soul, of course, knows its own thoughts. Next to it (the soul), is the spirit of man who would know the thoughts of the soul or man. This fact is used by God to know the thoughts of man; the spirit of man is used by God as His illuminating lamp to know the thoughts of man. So, for any man, even if he is NOT a believer, God can know his thoughts by “tapping” Himself into the spirit of the man. In addition, for a believer, God has placed His own Spirit at the very centre of the soul, called the “heart” or the “innermost part of the belly”. Because the Holy Spirit has been placed there, and He (the Holy Spirit) interacts with the man’s spirit, the Spirit knows directly the condition/thoughts of spirited soul, and He, the Spirit, does intercede to God (Father God), concerning the believer, according to God’s will, which the Spirit would know, since, like the spirit of man would know the thoughts of man, the Spirit of God, too, know the thoughts of God, and therefore, His will. Because of the Spirit’s petitioning according to His knowledge of the man’s spirited soul, God therefore, knows the condition of the spirited soul, visa-vis’ His (God’s) will.

There is just no way, a man can hide his thoughts from God. God is the knower of hearts.

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, (Acts 1:24, KJV).

The “which knowest the hearts” (G2589 - kardiognōstēs) means knower of hearts; thus the Lord is known as the knower of hearts.

What is the significance of these understandings?
Which is more intimate and immediate, the Spirit of God coming to know by tapping in, from outside, or the Spirit of God knowing directly from within? For non-believers, the Spirit of God does NOT indwell them, He (the Spirit) works from outside in; for us, believers, the Spirit indwells us, and works from within. Because of the immediacy and intimacy, the thoughts of a believer, “hit” God immediately and strongly, be it, in offending or honoring way. And so, we have this, written for us, believers, in Scripture:

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Eph 4:30)

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity (Ps 94:11, KJV). If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart {H3820 – “leb”, equivalent to centre of soul}(Ps 44:20-21, KJV). Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him {God} to whom we must give account (Heb 4:13, NIV).

PS: An article to come: What God wants to do, apart from knowing.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

People are NOT healed all the time, why we still pray

2011-07-20T20:28:00.000-07:00

It is a fact that people are NOT healed, all the time by God; those who argue this is NOT a fact, is in denial. It is indeed a fact that not everyone is healed by God all the time no matter how hard we pray. As Christians, if we claim 100% success rate all the time, we are NOT doing God a favor, rather we are doing Him a disfavor. God NEVER promises unconditionally He will heal everyone in his present life on earth. Many verses can be cited for support of God heals, but none is saying that God promises unconditionally to heal everyone or for anyone all the time. As a minister in healing, we should refrain from stating that there is such an unconditional promise. If God does NOT heal all the time, should we still pray for healing?

It is NOT just healing
But it is also a fact that it is NOT just for healing, that we do NOT get a 100% success rate when we pray. We pray for many things and all sort of things; if you can have 100% success rate over long period of time, or near to it, let me know, maybe you can pray for me! Let me point out that it is therefore, improper to deemphasize praying for the sick any more than praying for other matters (job, life-time partner, money, shelter, and food or deliverance). In other words, the lack of 100% success rate is NOT limited to praying for the sick.

How do we explain, NOT all are healed?
Yes, it is true NOT all are healed when we pray for them; it is because God NEVER promises unconditionally to heal all, in their present lives on earth.

The redemptive works of Jesus Christ on the Cross are of 3-folds, spiritual, physical, works (or purpose). For understanding of this, please read my separate article, “Works of redemption by our Lord”. Basically, under physical, the body is being referred to, and my exposition in the article is that full redemption of the body is NOT intended in our current living on earth.

Full redemption comes after we pass on or when Jesus comes back (rapture following it), when we take on our incorruptible body. After The Fall, it was NEVER intended Man shall live forever in his earthly body; he is destined to die, so that he can take on the incorruptible body. That is why there is NEVER an unconditional promise in Scripture that God heals. You see, if God did give an unconditional promise to heal, then it will be God MUST heal, and if God MUST heal, then Man cannot die, and when Man cannot die, Man cannot take on the incorruptible body that Jesus talked about, and that scripture will NOT come to pass.

That, Adam and Eve would eventually died, did NOT stop God’s caring for them
After Adam and Eve sinned against God in The Fall, as decreed by God, they must die in accordance to the commandments God gave them in Gen 2:16-17.

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Gen 2:16-17)

The death was referring to both spiritual death and physical death. Spiritual death means to be separated from God by being thrown into the lake of burning fire in Hell to remain there, separate from God for eternality. But physical death must happen so that spiritual death can be entered into. That was why Adam and Eve must NOT be allowed to eat of the fruit from the Tree of Life anymore, and so, be put out of the Garden of Eden where the Trees of Life were found. Those wanting to have fuller exposition of The Fall, can read my separate series on “The Fall”.

But that, Adam and Eve would later (a few hundred years later) died (physical death), did NOT stop God from caring for them. Below are some verses indicating God’s care for the first family, after the Fall:

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. (Gen 3:21).

When Adam and Eve fell, they only made for themselves, leaf covering - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves (Gen 3:7).

Outside of the Garden, subsequently, Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. (Gen 4:1-2).

After Cain murdered Abel, and Cain was banished, Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” (Gen 3:25) When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. (Gen 5:3-5)

Thereafter, it was and is still the same
It is the same today, despite we are still going to die physically, God still cares for our physical and emotional well-being. It was prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 53, and it came to pass when Jesus walked on the earth as a man, and did that (cared), on behalf of the Father God.

The prophecy: Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4)

The Fulfillment: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matt 8:16-17)

Jesus did only, those which the Father God would have done, and that included caring for the physical and emotional well-being of Man, while he (Man) lived: Jesus gave them {the Jews of His time} this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19). “I have testimony weightier than that of John {the Baptist}. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. (John 5:36). They did not understand that he {Jesus} was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:27-28).

Many healing accounts in Scripture
There are many accounts of healing in Scriptures, showing God did care to heal and make people well. Below are just examples from the Book of Matthew alone:

The “are you willing” leper healed: A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” 3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cured of his leprosy. (Matt 8:2-3).

Servant of “Centurion of great faith” healed: 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” 7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” 8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour. (Matt 8:5-10,13)

Peter’s mother-in-law healed of her fever: When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. (Matt 8:14)

Demons cast out and all sick THERE were healed: When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” (Matt 8:16-17).

Jesus healed all kinds of sicknesses and diseases: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (Matt 9:35).

Jesus’ disciples also healed various sicknesses, including expelling demons: He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. (Matt 10:1). Jesus’ instructions - As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. (Matt 10:7-8).

Although here, there was no direct mention of healings done by the apostles, in Acts 5:16, it was recorded many sick, demonized and demon-possessed people were healed by the apostles.

Jesus healed daughter of a Gentile (we can pray for non-believers to be healed): A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matt 15:22-28).

Jesus healed many at one seating, the mute, the crippled, the lame, the blind, etc: Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. (Matt 15:29-31).

This is why I pray for the sick for healing
I reiterate, it is NOT that God MUST heals or God WILL heal; it is God can and does heal. And we should pray for the sick on the following grounds:

1. God cares for the well-being of Man while he (Man) lives on earth
2. God can and does heal. He healed in the past, and currently still heals.
3. Jesus when He walked on the earth, did that, and it was part of His manifesto (see Luke 4:18-19), and as followers of Jesus, we are to do the same.
4. It is a good way to love our neighbours.
5. Generally, healed soldiers of God are better soldiers.
6. It glorifies God when testimony of His healing is shared.
7. It edifies the Church.
8. It is good works, it is bearing fruit, and we are commanded in Scripture to do good works and bear fruit.
9. Divine healing is one of the signs and wonders and miracles that God said will accompany His gospel.
10. Sickness is NOT good.

Of course, all of us would like to see higher success rate out of our ministry of praying for the sick. With a right heart attitude, this is absolutely right, for our love and compassion desire more people be ministered and healed; but ultimately, God decides who He will heal; and people can be, NOT healed, for any one or more reasons. If it is one success out of 7 attempts, I am more than willing, to pray, even if it is one out of 77, I will still pray.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions - Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them {for that instance} were healed {by the Apostles}. Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out (Acts 5:16-19).

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Who killed Goliath?

2011-07-13T21:53:00.000-07:00

In recent days, I have spent some time on the above subject, and it had begun with the reading of the first post, by the same name, by a Professor of the Old Testament, Dr Claude Mariottini. I was startled when I first came across the title, “Who killed Goliath?” I thought to myself, “I have gone through both books of Samuel and enough of the Old Testament stuff, but I had NOT previously come across any ambiguity as to who killed Goliath. Why, did this professor pose this question?” Did you also think it is clear-cut, even your Sunday School kids know the answer?

And so, I went back to my own study notes, which I refer to them as “my private commentary” on the Word of God. From the commentary that I had written up, it was this, and which I had previously accepted them plainly:

1 Samuel 17:49-51 – David killed Goliath {“everybody” knows that}

2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV84) – “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [c] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [d] the Gittite ….”

and the NIV84 footnote for [c] is this: “2 Samuel 21:19 Or son of Jair the weaver”; and for [d] is this: “2 Samuel 21:19 Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath”

1 Chron. 20:5 (NIV84) read as follows: “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

From here, previously, I concluded that David killed Goliath, and Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, Lahmi (assuming Jaare-Oregim and Jair were the same person, the father of Elhanan). But the Professor, in his first part of a 3-part article, said this:

“But the answer to the question “who killed Goliath” is not as easy as it seems. Several years ago, a group of international Old Testament scholars met in Paris at a two-day conference to discuss this issue. The topic of the conference was “Who Killed Goliath.” Scholar after scholar presented papers on different aspects of this issue. After two days of discussion, those scholars concluded that it was impossible to decide who killed Goliath.”

The Professor, in his articles, gave a few views of other scholars, but I would NOT go into them in any details, because I consider them as having little merit, but if you like, you can read all the 3 parts of the Professor’s article here: Who killed Goliath? Part 1; Who killed Goliath? Part 2; Who killed Goliath? Part 3. In the last part, the Professor gave His own take of who killed Goliath. Imagine, a group of international OT scholars, after researches and a 2-day conference could NOT conclusively decide who killed Goliath!

So, I commented on the Professor’s part I of his article:

“Unless, it is argued that the equating of Jaare-Oregim to Jair is NOT acceptable, it appears that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath whom David killed. Goliath could be a family or clan name, such was NOT uncommon in those days. The key figure would then be called “The such and such”, and in this case, “The Goliath”; and David killed The Goliath. Elhanan killed “a Goliath”, and that Goliath was the brother (Lahmi) of The Goliath.

With due respect, less fuss over this might be better.”

Without seeing the Professor’s view, my conclusion was that Goliath was probably a clan or family name of some giants. My own study of OT scriptures, without always ignoring genealogy, and my more recent study on a similar “same name issue” character, Obed Edom, had helped to me to believe Goliath could be a clan or family name. Those interested, can read my separate article on Obed-Edom, although it is quite separate from Goliath, but related, in the sense that the controversy over the “secret” or “pleasing ways” of Obed Edom also hinges on whether there was one Obed Edom throughout or there was more than one Obed Edom - “Secret of Obed Edom, faulty premise more likely”.

By now, you are probably wondering what the Professor’s view is! But before I reveal that, let me say that the Professor expressed his objection to the purported harmonisation of the 2 accounts of a Goliath being killed, one account in 2 Samuel (2 Samuel 21:19) and the other, in 1 Chronicles (1 Ch 20:5).

While there was a case for saying that a harmonisation was perhaps attempted, but the Professor’s slant was that the writer or he called him or them, the chronicler(s) of the Books of Chronicles, introduced “the corruption” to resolve the inconsistency of the 2 accounts of Goliath being killed in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 17:49-51 – David killed Goliath; and 2 Samuel 21:19 – Elhanan killed Goliath). Originally, I got a little confused and thought that the Professor was referring to a translation of 1 Chronicles, and so, I mistakenly thought that “the brother of” (Goliath) was introduced by a translator, but when I went to the Hebrew text (OT originally written in Hebrew) of 1 Ch 20:5, I realised that “the brother of” was in the Hebrew text. And so, my final conclusion is that I cannot agree with the Professor that “the brother of” was introduced into the Chronicles to harmonise the 2 accounts of Goliath being killed, in the Books of Samuel. Why do I say that?

My understanding is that we have to be clear first of all, whether we are referring to the original text, written in Hebrew, or a translation (into another language) of the Chronicle’s account. We need to distinguish between the original authors of the various books or epistles that made up the Bible (the official 66 Books – canonised Scriptures), and groups of persons who translate the Bible into other language(s). According to 2 Tim 3:16, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (KJV) or is God-breathed (NIV84); and so, we must believe the original authors had the inspiration from God, and in that sense, whatever that was written in Scripture (the original versions) had the approval of God, minimally, to me, God allowed them to be entered the ways the original authors entered them, influenced by their own personal styles and so on and so forth. Because of this understanding it is proper that a Christian takes the Bible as it is, authoritative; it is the words of God, there is no mistake in the words of God; any “mistake” that we see in the written form (as written by the original authors) of the words of God, it can only be the “mistake” made by the authors (NOT talking about the translators), but even so, since God had allowed it to be recorded as such, such “aberration” is NOT “fatalistic”.

Now, for the translators, it is a whole lot of a different story. The individual translator may claim he was inspired by the Holy Spirit for particular verse translation, but you have to decide if you can believe him. There are so many translations out there, and frankly speaking, there are some legitimate disapproval of some of the translations. Which translators are right? You, be my guest.

So, since we are NOT talking about a translation of the Chronicles, but the original Hebrew text, and “the brother of” (Goliath) was found in the Hebrew text, I can accept NO corruption of the Chronicle’s account, despite the Professor’s inclination. The suggestion that the original authors of Chronicles had wanted to harmonise the 2 apparent contradictory accounts (in the Books of Samuel) of who killed Goliath is just a speculation; no one knows the truth of that.

Now, to be clear, it was the 2 Samuel 21:19 account that did NOT have “the brother of” (Goliath) in its original Hebrew text; and translators, including the 1984 NIV translators, attempted to harmonise it to 1 Ch 20:5, through the use of footnotes. I accept the Professor’s protest against 2011 NIV’s rendering which inserted “the brother of” directly into the verse, and by way of footnote, mentioned that the Hebrew text did NOT contain the phrase, “the brother of”. With due respect to the Professor, we could argue against the introduction of “the brother of” by the translators, but we should NOT argue “corruption” by the original author(s) of the Books of Chronicles. Meaning, if we like, we can regard that there were 3 events, and NOT 2 events, meaning, David’s killing in 1 Samuel 17:49-51, as one event, Elhanan of Jaare-Oregim’s killing, as another event (2 Samuel 21:19), and finally, Elhanan of Jair’s killing, as a separate event (1 Ch 20:5).

It is obvious, by now there was more than one (1) Goliath; two (2) if you want to treat 2 Sam 21:19 and 1 Ch 20:5 as referring to the same account, three (3) if we treat all the accounts as separate. Then who killed Goliath? Even if we accept 1 Ch 20:5 as it was written, i.e. it was a brother of Goliath (called Lahmi), and NOT Goliath, who was killed, there were still two (2) Goliaths in the Books of Samuel. So who killed Goliath? My answer, you already know, in brief, from the above, David killed one Goliath, Elhanan of Jaare-Oregim killed another Goliath, and Elhanan of Jair killed another Goliath (called Lahmi); Goliath was (I believe) a clan or family name. What about the Professor’s answer?

The Professor ‘s answer is that Goliath was probably referring to a group of warriors, something like in the US, there were the “navy seals”. In other words, David killed one such warrior, and Elhanan(s) killed other such warrior(s). The support cited by the Professor was that there was a recent discovery made, where a potsherd was dug out in Gath where Goliath lived, that had “Goliath” written on it, and the inscription was believed to have been made over 100 years subsequent to David’s time. In reply to my comment, the Professor agreed that it was possible that there were a family of Goliaths. However, he said that he believed the archaeological find could indicate that the name was used by other people. Now, there is NO conclusion to that last statement; for to me, who were “other people” and who were the descendants of Goliath clan, who is able to tell now?; a 100 years from David’s time was NOT very long, possibly, the children of the deceased Goliaths, were still around and could be the “other people”.

Until more light can be shed from archaeological discoveries, there is only so much we can deduce from the information recorded for us in Scripture. I suppose, of the two views, mine or the professor’s, you can just take one. I will still stick to mine, though, and I will say a little bit more about it.

Normally, such family name or clan, as I understand them to be, there was a “head” and the head started the line (or name), and it was possible that the Goliath that David killed was The Goliath headman. The timing could suggest that, since when David killed The Goliath, he (David) was still a young boy who did NOT have any warriors with him, unlike his brothers who were already serving at the battleground; the other accounts appeared to have occurred subsequent to David’s killing. Of course, it was also possible that because of the fame of David, well, “The David”, the Goliath that he killed was being labeled as “The Goliath”. In any case, there were 2 or 3 Goliaths killed.

It is too long a shot to claim that Elhanan and David were the same man. The suggestion that David was without sword, and it was another who killed the Goliath and David just assumed the credit, it is NOT admissible (this was one of the views expressed by other scholars), for it was CLEARLY stated in 1 Sam 17:51 that David killed the giant with the giant’s sword – “David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.”

Finally, as I have hinted in my comment against the Professor’s 1st post, all of these should NOT distract us from the story of David’s slain of a giant with a sling and a stone. In Biblical interpretation, the part of the Word that clearly has no ambiguity, we accept without questioning, and if we have to, we will drop ambiguous parts, favoring the one without ambiguity. Compared with the others, where goliaths were also killed, David’s story is “big deal”, NOT without reasons or merits: David was still a shepherd boy, courageous for a boy, he stood for God, he chose to arm appropriately, yes, he was without sword or armor, he used only a sling and smooth pebbles.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions - It is understandable we do NOT have revelation of all of Scripture (i.e. we do NOT understand all of Scripture), and some parts of the Bible, to us, really are short, in details, but Scripture was NOT intended to record everything; Scripture itself, in John 21:25, said there would NOT be enough room in the world to contain it, if we had recorded just all the things that Jesus did. But we CANNOT doubt the integrity of Scripture.

PS: If you cannot remember anything else, still just continue to remember David killed a Goliath with a sling and a stone!

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

The potter and the clay – His sovereignty

2011-07-06T19:22:00.000-07:00

In the Old Testament, the subject of potter and clay was clearly seen in the words of 2 significant prophets of Old, namely, Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah came on the scene about a hundred years earlier than Jeremiah. He started prophesying around 740 BC during King Uzziah (or Azariah) of Judah, and died during the reign of King Hezekiah. All in all, he prophesied during the reigns of King Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah.

Jeremiah started prophetic ministry around 626 BC, during the reign of Josiah, King of Judah. His ministry was believed to have continued until after the destruction of the first temple of Jerusalem (Temple of Solomon) around 586 BC by the Babylonians.

The parable of the potter and the clay was most comprehensively expressed initially by the prophet Isaiah.

Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand (Isaiah 64:8).

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? (Isaiah 29:16)

9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10).

We can trust that the parable of the potter and the clay expressed by Isaiah was inspired by the LORD. Then, subsequent to Isaiah, the LORD confirmed the parable through His instructing the prophet Jeremiah to go to a potter’s house, and while there, and while Jeremiah was observing the potter reshaping a marred pot into another pot, He, the LORD, spoke out concerning the parable:

“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (Jeremiah 18:6)

Then, in the New Testament (NT) we read of the parable in the Book of Romans, by the Apostle Paul:

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

It is a parable
Why do I say it is a parable? Because it fits the definition of a parable. What is a parable? The Greek word for parable is parabolē, which means

1) a placing of one thing by the side of another
2) metaphor - a comparing, comparison of one thing with another, likeness, similitude

This is to say a parable comprises concepts of “parallels”, metaphors, and analogy. The idea to bear in mind is the chief definition of placing of one thing by the side of another, i.e. there are 2 different things being put side by side and being talked about. This is why for some of the parables in the Bible, the opening goes like this, “The Kingdom of God is like ….”. At the end of the day, we still go back to one of the 2 things, and the correct one to go back to, is the one being illustrated, NOT the metaphor.

Now, it is important when you are reading the Bible, to know whether you have come to a parable or just a narrative. For example, the narrative about the woman with blood issue (been bleeding for 12 years) touching Jesus’ cloak and got healed is NOT a parable – it is an account of an event and should be interpreted as such.

Remember I said there are 2 things in a parable, the thing (in this case, the set of things, God and men), and the metaphor (potter and clay). In this parable in question, there is a pair, with potter, the metaphor for God, and clay, the metaphor for men. In interpretation of a parable, we must always remember at the end of the day, we go back to the “thing”, and NOT the metaphor or we do NOT stop at the metaphor.

The Interpretation
For a start, I would like to put the verses we have seen above, altogether in one place:

Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand (Isaiah 64:8). You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? (Isaiah 29:16) 9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10). “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. (Jeremiah 18:6). Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

From Isaiah 64:8, we can derive this understanding: we have God, our LORD; He is to be understood as our Father. We are men, and we have a Father God. When He is Father, we are children. Framing in terms of what we can understand (Father and children), we, men are given rise to, by the Father, God. A child is begotten by a father, just as a pot or a piece of pottery is made by the potter from clay. Not only that, a child is shaped by the father, just like the clay is shaped by the potter. The child is likened to the clay. A Man, a grown-up child, is likened to a pot or a piece of pottery, shaped from clay. Just as the pottery was the result of the works on clay of the potter, we are the works of God’s hand. Honestly, how many of us can consider ourselves as fully-grown up, and NO longer need working on, by God? In God’s eyes we are all still children, still likened to be clay or unfinished pottery pieces.

Of course, Isaiah 64, in terms of chronological order, came subsequent to the earlier mention of the subject of potter and clay, but it is being put right in the beginning here by me for the reason we are able to more simply see the parable-placing of the 2 sets of things, as according to the definition of a parable. As to what Isaiah was trying to say (to the LORD), I will cover it, a little further down this article.

If we read Isaiah 29:13 (before Isaiah 29:16), we can see the LORD was expressing His disapproval that the Israelites were NOT properly regarding Him as their Father, the one who gave rise to them, and endowed them to be who they were. At that time, the Israelites only honored God with their lips, but their hearts were far from God; they did NOT worship or revere God in truth, but their worship of God was made up of only rules taught by men. In other words, they had turned things upside down; it should have been they were to do according to what God had dictated and NOT they did what they thought they knew better.

Isaiah, in verse 15 of Isaiah 29, spoke woe against the Israelites then, who thought they were above God, that they could hide their plans from God; they could do evil in darkness and thought that no one would see, and no one would know. It was and is of course, the other way round, God is entitled NOT to reveal some of His plans, and He sees all and knows all, for He is the one who formed us and He is in charge.

Although initially Isaiah 29:16 was spoken against the Israelites, we can note that it can be speaking to us, too. Are we treating things the other way round, we think we are the “father”, and God, the “charge”? Metaphorically, the potter was thought to be like clay, and the clay, potter. Isaiah posed if we could think the Father God did NOT create us, Man; or we considered God as knowing nothing. Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”? The Isaiah 29:16 text is exhorting us to examine our attitude toward God’s involvement, His work in our lives? Are we critical of what God is doing? Are we disapproving, are we resisting?

If we think that way, as described in the Isaiah 29:16 text, we are in fact, quarreling with God, our Maker (Isaiah 45:9-10). Isaiah said, “Woe to us”, who are but potsherds, broken pieces of pottery. Can the clay question the potter? Just as the potter has all the right to make anything out of a lump of clay, and the clay cannot protest, so does God has the right to decide what He wants to shape us to be. If the potter wants to make a vase, he makes a vase; if he wants to make a spittoon, he makes a spittoon. Similarly, God has the sovereign right to decide if he will have us be a doctor or a nurse, a preacher or a teacher, or a hard laborer or a janitor. We cannot question the will of the Father God for each one of us, just as the clay has no say what the potter will shape it into.

Again addressing the Israelites, this time Jeremiah, in Jer 18:6, was saying, could NOT God do as He pleased with the house of Israel, just like the potter, the clay? Jeremiah was being referred to the re-shaping or re-moulding of a marred pot into another. Because of things that had happened in the history of the Israelites, their flawed ways and sins, and all, accordingly God was then having the full right to re-shape the house of Israel. Even though it was against the Israelites, it can be applied to us; God is entitled to reshape us to function in whatever manner He deems fit, even when we are found “marred”. In other words, God has the right to change how and what He will have us do or function in, as He deems fit, with changes in and around us. Maybe, something has happened, can be to/in us, or even just to the circumstances around us, God has all the right to tune us to function in the role that He now desires, much like the potter has the right to reshape a marred pot into something else, say, a vase or spittoon or something. In addition, implicit in that text, is God’s willingness to re-work us, and NOT just dump us; and that is a comforting revelation!

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah were underlying the sovereignty of God, His right to decide what He wants to do with us. He has all the right to decide each of our role, and to change that.

Before I move to the NT’s mention of the parable in Romans 9:21, let me cover what I said I would cover, concerning what Isaiah was trying to say in his use of the parable in Isaiah 64. In all the other mentions, as covered above and also in the NT that we will deal with after this, the parable was directed at men. The parable was used to explain, teach and even admonish us. In Isaiah 64:8, Isaiah was speaking to the LORD – “Yet, O LORD, you are …..”. In other words, even as God had previously given prophet Isaiah, this parable, and the understanding thereof, to speak, teach and admonish the Israelites, Isaiah used it in his appeal to God to turn away from His anger.

Isaiah asked for mercy from God, stating that God was our Creator, Father, the one who begotten us; we are works of His hands, likening us to the clay, and God, the potter. In other words, Isaiah was imploring God, on account of us being works of His hand, NOT to be angry beyond measure (Isaiah 64:9); NOT to remember their (Israelites’) sins forever. The historical background was that by that time, the Israelites had been sinning very badly, so badly that Isaiah said in verse 6 of Isaiah 64, all of the Israelites had become like one who was unclean, and all their righteous acts were like filthy rags, so much so that God had hidden His face from them (v7). Isaiah was interceding for God’s turning away from His anger against Israel, and he appealed to God’s personhood as the Creator, Father, and metaphorically, the potter.

To me, the NT Romans 9:21 is another way of stating Isaiah 45:9-10, although it also touched on Isaiah 29:16.

9 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ (Isaiah 45:9-10).

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:21)

Clearly, as in Isaiah 45, the Romans text spoke about the sovereignty of God, and that He has the right to make us out to be whatever He so desires; and we cannot quarrel with Him on that. Just as the potter has the right to make out of the same lump of clay, some pottery for noble purposes, and some for common use, so God is entitled to shape us to fit whatever role He so desires each of us to undertake, regardless we thinking if one role is nobler or more common compared with another.

Sure, some roles, in our eyes, are nobler or more common compared with others, but in God’s eyes, actually, what He assigns is noble, none is ignoble, for ignobility is incompatible with the nature of God. Common is NOT ignoble!

The incorrect and correct way of linking to 2 Tim 2:20-21
There are teachers or speakers who combine Romans 9:21 and 2 Tim 2:20-21 in one preaching. There is nothing wrong with that, except, they must NOT lump the 2 texts together and explain them similarly, often subverting the true intent of 2 Tim 2:20-21. It is wrong to do that. As stated above, firstly, common is NOT ignoble. Secondly, in 2 Tim 2:20-21, the Apostle Paul was teaching that there is a Man’s part – we are to cleanse ourselves of ignoble, and set ourselves on the noble, in order that we can be a holy vessel, useful for the Master’s use, to do any good works. Whereas, Romans 9:21, also by Paul, as we have seen above, spoke about the sovereignty of God, and He decides what He wants to make us to be, and assigns to us our lot, as He desires; that is part of His part.

For the benefit of readers, I put down here the 2 Tim 2:20-21 text:

20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work (2 Tim 2:20-21).

The correct way to link Romans 9:21 to 2 Tim 2:20-21 is the answer for the question posed by verse 19 of Romans 9:

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” (Romans 9:19)

The answer is that there is still a Man’s part, and it is as stated in 2 Tim 20:21, Man has to cleanse himself from the ignoble, so that he will be an instrument for noble purpose, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. We are resisting His will when we do NOT choose to cleanse ourselves from the ignoble. A whole list of ignoble was given by the Apostle Paul in 2 Tim 2 & 3, and I did provide a summary of the ignoble in my separate article on the exposition of 2 Tim 2:20-21, you can get it here, “You must choose to cleanse yourselves from ignoble”

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Lord, I thank you for your revelation that I am NOT submitting to your sovereignty, and therefore, am resisting your will when I am NOT choosing to cleanse myself from the ignoble. I am to cleanse myself from the ignoble so that I will be an instrument for noble purpose, made holy, useful to you and prepared to do any good work.

PS 1: Of course, the proud are guilty of resisting His will, and it is being listed as one of the ignoble in 2 Tim 3.

PS 2: No, Romans 9:21 is NOT in support of immutable personal predestination (emphasis of Calvinism). In fact, if we believe God is consistent, the same imagery of potter and clay as used in Jer 18, is still applicable even in NT times; in metaphorical terms, the potter will reshape the marred pottery, in actual terms, God refashions a “marred” individual; NOT immutability.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

They call it the view of Hell

2011-06-30T00:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, I read a long write-up of an interview between a distinguished Post and a Bible scholar on the subject of the view of Hell. The scholar has a view of Hell which differs from the traditional view of the same. This article I am putting up here, is in defense of the traditionalist view of Hell, and in the process, expresses views contrary to the followers of the so-called conditionalist view of Hell. With a view to give understanding, I also elaborated on a number of peripheral, but connected issues to the view of Hell.

View expressed here are my own
The views expressed in this article, as well as those in the various articles of mine, which I will give reference to, are solely my own, and do NOT necessarily represent the church or any Christian organization which I am a part of, or have associations with. Of course, who we sit under over the years, does shape our belief in matters relating to the faith.

Also, as far as possible, I try my best (I am human, too) NOT to attack a person per se; rather I do speak out against questionable teachings. If you teach wrong teaching on the core theologies of the faith, I will NOT hesitate to write against that teaching.

On exegesis
Talking about Hell is like talking about Heaven when one has NOT been to either. So, there is no facts to talk about, no evidence to study, except for expressions of Man (inspired by the Holy Spirit) in the Word, and various writings throughout times, including ancient times, before and during the Bible authoring. For me, it has always been that we give the strongest weightage to the Word. Any data, information or views expressed in extra-biblical writings, if admitted, must NOT contradict existing ones (however incomplete, they might seem) in Scriptures. In other words, filling in the gaps must NOT contradict existing information as stated in Scriptures.

It is also NOT acceptable to hide behind bombastic words such as perspicuity when one contradicts existing facts of the Word. Yes, what does that word, “perspicuity” mean? Acuteness of judgment! Whatever acuteness of judgment that one may have, it cannot contradict the revealed facts of the Word, for the Holy Spirit does NOT contradict the Word of God.

Anything with NO link to information in Scriptures, is pure speculation, and must be recognized as such. I am NOT saying we cannot speculate but we must note the difference between speculation and correct adoption of filling in the gaps, as a manner of interpreting Scriptures (I expressed in some of my articles, also, my stand on experiences, which in this case, is NOT relevant {experience of Hell, anyone?}, that people should NOT form theology out of their experiences, but to view experiences as testifying to theology derived solely from the Word).

My caution, to even distinguished pastors and ministers, is that we must all be very careful when we are inclined to “borrow” explanations in ex-biblical writings to explain the Word. In the same way, it is also absolutely critical we translate the Bible correctly, that we are careful NOT to add or subtract from it, or color the translation with our own “slant” in theological beliefs. (I am aware that inevitably a view is sometimes adopted, for pure lack of data or information. Having the correct overall counsel of the Word is of utmost importance in translation of Scriptures).

Three views mentioned
Three views are mentioned in the interview, of Hell, and are as follows:

1. The traditionalist view - hell as the fire that torments forever.
2. Universalist view - hell as the fire that purifies and refines.
3. Conditionalist view (the scholar's view) - hell as the fire that consumes.

This, I take serious issue with!
In the interview, the scholar expressed his agreement with the interviewer that he (the scholar) and the universalists agree on one thing, and that one thing is that our God is a loving God and so cannot be sending someone to Hell to be burned and tormented forever.

The conditionalists and the universalists cannot accept that our God is a loving God and at the same time, can still be sending {this of course, is understood by all as consequence of our sinning} some to Hell to be burned and tortured forever. Now, they cannot accept; that is their position, but that does NOT mean anything! They cannot accept, but that does NOT mean that it cannot be! I am NOT saying that the conditionalists are apostates, but there are Christians who teaches that everyone will go to Heaven, because they erroneously argue that sending people to Hell is incongruent with the character of God.

The point is that there are many people in the world who subscribe to this view: “I do NOT want a God who will send me to Hell because I refuse to listen to Him”. The Gospel is that we have to accept God’s plan of salvation through Christ Jesus; we have to subscribe to that Gospel; that is what the Word said. Anything to the effect of, “No-lah, since God is so loving, that He even sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us, surely He cannot be sending us to Hell to be burned and tortured.”, is heretic, if NOT apostate. Like I said, I am NOT saying the conditionalists are apostates, but more inclination towards a loving God cannot be sending people to Hell or to Hell to be tormented for long stretch of time is likely to fuel more false “theologies” to be spun out to paint an incorrect will of God for Man, as portrayed in Scriptures.

I once read over the internet of a teacher who taught that everyone will get to Heaven to be with God, regardless of whether or not, in the person’s life-time, he accepts the Lord as his personal Lord and Savior. Many concerned Christians wrote against that teaching, and one of the things expressed was this: “You mean I have been interceding for my family members to receive Jesus into their lives for nothing!”. One of the verses cited in support for such argument that all men will be included is this:

1 Tim 2:4 (KJV) – “{God} Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

Well, the verse said that God “will have”, thelō (G2309), desires, all men be saved, but it does NOT say that it is God MUST save all men.

We really must be very careful when we import extra-biblical views into our faith. Another example of unacceptable portrayal that our God is a loving God who will be willing to give 2nd chances to people, is that there are teachers that went round teaching that we can intercede for the dead to be admitted to Heaven, giving rise to ridiculous “passing the buck” to children of reluctant parents who did NOT want to give their lives over to Jesus while they are alive. A friend of mine was so tempted by that erroneous “loop-hole” that he asked me if it is indeed possible that his children can, in the future, intercede for him to enter into Heaven when he, in his life-time, is NOT going (NOT willing) to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.

Then, along the line of man-centred (instead of God-centred) reasoning expressed in the interview, there are teachers who expressed that over the history of mankind, millions and millions of people have died without entry into salvation; how can it be that “entry into salvation” is an essential criteria, too many would be lost?! True, over the years, millions if not billions, have died that way, but that does NOT negate the Gospel or the Word of God, for Jesus Himself has expressed:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14).

If God’s love MUST absolutely see us in Heaven, why the need to send Jesus? The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be ignored.

Then, there are those who taught, based on, “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”, a narrative by our Lord, Jesus, and concluded that entry into salvation is NOT the essential criteria to get to Heaven, but works (good works) solely, is the essential criteria. Their central argument was that works (good works) evidenced the love of such a “good works” person, and because God is love, God will recognize those good works, and the person will be granted entry into Heaven, and he is able to avoid being sent to the burning fire of Hell. This, in my view, is apostate, for it is incongruent with the revealed will of God for Man, as written in the Gospel. My definition of being an apostate is one holding onto core theology incongruent to the REVEALED will of God, as written in the Word. If you want my interpretation of the same narrative of our Lord, read this separate article of mine: “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”.

It is NOT so much the concept (here, expressed as “view”) of Hell that is of issue, it is the saying that a loving God cannot be sending some to Hell to be burned and tormented (torment or torture itself carries connotation of significant length of time of suffering), that I seriously take issue with.

Which is more vindictive; putting people to fire to burn to purify and refine (universalist view), or putting people to fire to consume (conditionalist view)? Obviously, conditionalists are no more portraying a loving God than the universalists or the traditionalists. They are saying that one sent there, is consumed, which means that he is NO more, absolutely or final or irreversible. Let’s say for a moment, that the conditionalist is right, but is the picture he painted, one of a more loving God than the other scenarios? I do NOT know about you, when there is NO more of me, in absolute, how can it be more loving! To me, it is an oxymoron, to say that this conditionalist view is more acceptable over the traditionalist view because it paints a more loving God.

It is NOT the intention of this article to dwell on the universalist view of hell as fire that purifies and refines, but I will just state, as far as I am concerned, that view of Hell is undisputedly incorrect based on the revealed will of God, as written in the Bible.

Man bipartite or tripartite?
The scholar spoke about Man as being with soul and body. Although it is NOT very clear from the interview whether or not, he is of the view that both the soul and body are both physical and mortal, such is the view held by other conditionalists, and they and scholar made no reference to the spirit of Man. So, it is either they are viewing the spirit and soul of Man as synonymous or they do NOT believe Man is tripartite. The soul {psychē, G5590} and spirit {pneuma, G4151} of Man is NOT synonymous – Heb 4:12.

Whether or NOT a conditionalist believes that Man is tripartite, the correct biblical view is that Man is tripartite, i.e. Man is body, soul and spirit. For understanding of this, please read my separate article, “Man is body, soul and spirit”. In it, NOT without reference to Scriptures, is the view expressed. It is based on interpretation of Scriptures (of course, one can dispute my interpretations, but, I believe they are NOT incorrect, although my article explained the tripartite nature most simplistically, compared with the common articles you find on the internet). If you follow my argument there, the potential for immortality is present right from the beginning, in God’s creation of Man (meaning if Adam did NOT sin, he would be living forever by just taking in of the fruit from the Tree of Life). This is contrary to the belief of the conditionalists who believe that it is an entirely afterward issue, with immortality coming in view only when resurrection takes place. My article explains it is in the creation of Man, that Man was granted the potential for immortality, compared with animals and plants. Man was given a spirit by God, and it is the spirit of Man which has the capacity of eternal life or immortality that gave the soul of Man the potential of immortality.

Man is with a spirited soul, animals and plants are without, that is why I also hold on to the view that animals (and plants) do NOT go to Heaven. You can read about this in my separate article, “Animals do NOT go to Heaven”. Our belief of spirits being capable of living forever, is that, which will make a lot of difference in how we make sense of some of the deep things of God. For example, angels are spirit (of course, we know God is spirit, The Spirit), and so, angels do NOT expire, become nothingness! When Man was created, he was NOT meant to expire, too! If you believe in the story of Lucifer, of his creation, his fall, the pronouncement against him, and his destiny, which you can read about it as part of my separate article, “It is a tug of war”, you will be able to more clearly see the link between the immortal spirit, Satan (aka or pka Lucifer), and Man’s predicament.

The scholar said that it was the Greek philosophers who colored the lenses of the early fathers of the faith to embrace immortality of the soul. Well, Greek philosopher, Tertullian, or Swiss scholar, Oscar Cullmann or NOT, I know of him NOT (only because the scholar mentioned them), but like I say, “I believe in the immortality of the spirit, but NOT the soul, per se”. Now, in my understanding, the body is physical, the soul is the life participle or the being {psychē, G5590}, and the spirit of Man is spirit. The soul is NOT physical, the spirited soul is definitely NOT physical.

For a Christian, it is his spirited soul that lives on, in Heaven, meaning, he does NOT go to Heaven as a blank sheet, without soul, contrary to the belief of some Christians, partly, I supposed, they are influenced by the saying that the soul is mortal and physical (Now, the soul of animals and plants are mortal, but NOT that of Man, because of the spirit of Man).

As I have pointed out, among other things, in my separate article, “God is gender-neutral, He is Spirit”, one in Heaven does know who his earthly father and mother were or who were once their children on earth, although people are no longer given in marriage in Heaven; you will know, because your soul (or at least aspects of your soul) is NOT gone! {This separate article of mine will make an interesting read. By the way, the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix June 14-15, 2011, took issue with the adopting of the latest translation of the NIV Bible (2011 Translation) with one reason being the new translation adopted gender-neutrality in the translation. For example, where it appeared “brothers” it would now read “brothers and sisters” or “sons”, “sons and daughters”; such insertion is really NOT required}.

Hell and “new heaven and new earth” incompatible!
Satan (aka or pka Lucifer) and angels are immortal, based on understanding that can be derived from Scriptures, for the latter speaks no death or expiry of The Devil or angels, except that Satan and his minions would end up in the burning lake of fire. It is pure speculation on the part of the scholar in the interview to think that there cannot exist, Hell or a part thereof – the burning lake of fire, when the new heaven and new earth come into being. Scriptures speaks of NO destruction of Hell or the burning lake of fire, and it specifically talked about Hades and Death being thrown into Hell (Rev 20:14) at the closure of this current world.

Either it is a chapter to added, of its destruction, in the distant, distant future, for reason that it touches on a separate frame of distant time, or it will NOT be destroyed, Hell, that is, we really do NOT know; and frankly, to the extent that it is revealed of Hell, its character of being a tormenting place, it is sufficient as a warning to all. Please choose to fear God!

Torment may or may NOT be forever, absolutely, but we are NOT consumed instantly
Perhaps, there is no one verse in Scriptures that can be interpreted undisputedly as indicating tormenting in Hell is forever, absolutely, but there is also NO verse that indicates that burning in the burning lake of fire is short-lived. The conditionalist’s idea suggests we get “fried” like fish in fire is without scriptural support. Look, if it is all to be viewed in the physical, how long can we be fried in the burning lake of fire. In physical-humanistic view, of course, if the conditionalist is NOT consumed, he must be superman, from the Planet, Krytonite, or something!

The scholar in the interview said the Bible teaches us that it is that the fire consumes; yah, but Bible also teaches us that, it is that the “fire” refines; so, the universalists are correct - hell as the fire that purifies and refines? No, distinction must be made between “fires” in our current lives, and the burning lake of fire of Hell. As far as dealing of God with Man as revealed in His will, as written in the Word, there are chastisements and there is a punishment-in-finality (By the way, do you know why the 2 sections of the Bible are called testaments? Because they are the wills of God for men {testament = will}! So, don’t say, God revealed nothing of His will; some of them, are there in the Bible). Being thrown into the lake of fire of Hell for torment is the punishment-in-finality for Satan and his minions and all men counted with Satan. Beyond that, the Bible does NOT say, and views are pure speculations.

But who say, we are to view the burning in the lake of fire in our physical-humanistic perspective. Now, there was such a thing as a burning bush (like that encountered by Moses); the bush did NOT get burnt (Ex 3:2-3, Acts 7:30), why can’t there be a fire where we are being “roasted”, but we do NOT die or disappear or no more!

While conditionalists claimed there are no definitive verses to say in uncertain term, that the tormenting in Hell is eternal, there are many verses collectively SUGGEST that we do NOT get dropped into the fire of Hell and become instantly or quickly consumed. Below are some verses about Hell, and I have classified them under captions to make it easier to see the points I am making (I have excluded Luke 16 verses, as the Greek word used there, was “Hades” rather than Hell or its part thereof – the burning lake of fire. Hades will be destroyed, that I agree, for it is stated in Scriptures – Rev 20:14. But Hades and Hell are different.):

The fire is eternal:
Matt 18:8 - If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mark 9:43 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Mark 9:48 - where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Jude 1:7 - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

My point: The above speaks of a fire that is eternal or everlasting. As used in Matt 18:8 above, for example, it is the same word as used in eternal life or everlasting life. So, what do these verses tell us? There is an eternal fire or everlasting fire. So, it is unlikely it is a fire that was up for a brief moment that all of the unsaved are thrown into, including Satan and his minions, and then put out, and then God will have the new heaven and new earth come into place, as is suggested by the scholar in the interview.

There is the argument by conditionalists that, it is the result of punishment that is eternal NOT the punishment itself or process of punishment. But clearly, the “eternal” is attached to the fire, as used in the above verses.

Eternal punishment:
Matt 25:46 - “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV84). And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV).

My point: The above is a good example of same meaning use, for “eternal” or “everlasting”; the same Greek word was used in the verse at the 2 different places, “aiōnios” (G166), which means “everlasting”. How long is everlasting as applied to life, and how long is everlasting as applied to punishment, be my guest? It is also clear, the eternality is attached to the word, “punishment” just as it is attached to the word, “life”. I really do NOT appreciate how people can insist that it is NOT about the punishment, but the result of punishment. Let me explain.

Frankly speaking, if it were referring to the result of punishment, i.e. the person is consumed, no more, “apa pun tak ada” {a Malay phrase for “no more), no more Anthony, or no more John, how NOT eternal can one understand the result of that punishment be, if the word, “eternal” is NOT used? Of course, when you are “no more” it is eternal, it goes without saying! – no need to say “eternal”. Therefore, it is intentional for using “eternal” there, against “punishment”, to give an idea of the length of time of the punishment, just as it is to explain to men, how long is the life that we are going into, for we all know, the life that we know and are living in, currently, is one of several tens of years. In other words, eternal, against “life”, is similarly to explain we are NOT entering into another life-span that is only another several tens of years.

Be thrown into Hell:
Matt 18:8 - If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matt 18:9 - And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:45 - And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

Mark 9:47 - And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.

Matt 13:42,50 - They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Rev 20:15 - If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

My point: Why say “be thrown into the fire” or “be cast into the fire” by so many different authors, why NOT just say, “be consumed by the fire” or “killed or destroyed” by the fire? Because it was meant to portray there is still life after being put into the fire. It is NOT instant or quick annihilation, if it were so, at least one of them, the authors, might have said it, but NO, none of them said it.

Go into Hell:
Mark 9:43 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

My point: Yes, the above 2 verses, did NOT use “be thrown into”, but, for Mark 9:43, “go into hell” could very much be intended as the same as “be thrown into”, for while still on the same topic, a few verses down (Mark 9:47), the Apostle Mark used “be thrown into”.

We have seen from Matt 25:46 above, that the Apostle Matthew was speaking of “eternal punishment”, and so, the “depart to go into” eternal fire, is NO different from the interpretation of “being cast into” the eternal fire.

There will be weeping/wailing and gnashing of teeth:
Matt 13:42,50 - They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matt 18:12 - But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matt 22:13 - “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Matt 25:30 - And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

My point: What do wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth signify? Untold anguish and suffering, and it meant to portray a picture of, at least a period of suffering, surely NOT any sort of quick annihilation. I can drop you into a pit of fire, you tell me do you have time to weep or gnash your teeth in the fire; talking about physical!

Into Darkness:
Matt 18:12 - But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Jude 1:11-13 - Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

My point: Both the above verses implied length of time through the use of weeping and gnashing of teeth, and “reserved forever”. It is interesting here that “darkness” was used for Hell. On the surface, fire and darkness do NOT seem to go together, but, I believe the darkness referred to, was NOT the absence of the literal light that a fire would give out; rather it was darkness as in “bad”.

Conclusion: The above verses, collectively, can be reasonably be taken to have painted a picture of NOT an instantaneous or quick annihilation of our spirited souls, but a torment of the same, in the burning lake of fire in Hell.

Definition of “death” or “die”
On the issue of definition for “death” or “die”, I beg to differ from the scholar of the interview. His view is that “death” or “die” has to be referring to the same, in the physical sense. No, sometimes, those two words, referred to physical death, sometimes they referred to non-physical death.

In the Book of Hebrews, we can see an instance of it being used as physical death. Heb 9:27 – “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,” As physical death, Man dies ONCE, NOT twice, as implied by the scholar in the interview, in his physical rendering of the second death.

A second time death for a person, and there is such a thing (but NOT for the saved ones), but it is NOT referring to physical death. Rev 20:14 – “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.” Yes, the second death always is referring to the same {death} in the lake of fire of Hell.

Whether or NOT, the non-believers will be raised with an incorruptible body, is NOT that relevant, for that body is NOT of the same “physical nature” as we understand it to be, although, it is NOT wrong to view that body to be given us, as “physical”, for it is the final part of our physical redemption, one of the 3-fold redemptive works of our Lord (For understanding of the redemptive works of our Lord, read my separate article, “Works of redemptions of our Lord”). It is NOT physical like our flesh is! Just consider Lucifer, is he NOT with a body (read Eze 28, and know that he had a magnificent body), yet it is NOT physical like we are. The death in the burning lake of fire is NOT physical; for the body if there is one for the non-believers or any men, it is NOT physical like our flesh is; also the soul of Man is NOT physical, and the spirit of Man is NOT physical.

It is my belief that the spirited soul of Man cannot just die physically. Analogous to physical death, I can believe that the spirit can be weakened to a very weak state, well maybe even “coma equivalent”, but God can revive or quicken that spirit and it will come to life! Whether or not, one day, in the most distant, distant future, God will revive the spirits “trapped” in the burning lake of fire, we are NOT told; only God knows.

The death in Gen 2:17, the “you will surely die”, there 2 ways of interpreting it, but none is like that suggested by the conditionalists, although one of the two interpretations does amount to PHYSICAL death (ultimately), BUT it is the FIRST death! I shall explain.

Elsewhere (in other articles), I have only given one of the 2 interpretations, and it was this: The death was NOT referring to the physical death, rather it was referring to the second death, for clearly Adam did NOT die shortly after The Fall, but he lived to have Cain, Abel and Seth, and lived to an age over 900 years. This is NOT an incorrect interpretation, only that it is viewing the matter from the perspective of God - the first death, the physical death is only a “cross-over” or a transition. The relevant death from the perspective of God is the second death, the lake of fire in Hell.

The second interpretation, though it came to me earlier on, but it became clear, only most recently, is this: Indeed, the death referred to, was PHYSICAL death BUT it is the FIRST death, NOT the second death! This is viewing the matter from humanistic angle, emphasizing physical life, for truly from pure human point of view, if my life ends, what else is there to talk about! But conditionalists are still wrong, the second death is NEVER a physical death. It is said that the correct translation of the Hebrew text (OT, originally in Hebrew) is “dying you will die”. Well, the “dying” is referring to the second death (continuous tense implied “on the way to death {to the second death}), the “will die” is referring to the first death, the physical death that is common to all men. Adam would die (physically), and he did die, some 900 years later. The “dying” was referring to “spiritual decay” or weakening of the spirit of Man, together with his soul. With separation from God, the spirit of Man would get weaker, and so, the word, “dying”, and indeed it would be death (second death) for ones who do NOT receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. That is why Scriptures said that Jesus is the quickening spirit, coming to quicken or enliven the spirit of Man:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam {Jesus} was made a quickening spirit (1 Cor 15:45, KJV)

Therefore, to be comprehensive, both deaths were being referred to, in Gen 2:17. It is to be understood that in that time Man had no understanding of death, and God introduced it in that first prohibitive commandment. The nature of “death” is NEVER mixed up, first death is physical and second death is non-physical (culminating in the lake of burning fire of Hell, unless redeemed by the Lord). Also, the order is also NEVER mixed up, physical death must be entered into before non-physical one can culminate in the lake of burning fire of Hell, and that is why Adam was barred from (further!) eating from the Tree of Life, and be put out of the Garden of Eden.

By the way, the death in Romans 6:23 – “the wages of sin is death”, is to be similarly explained, following the principle of first mention. So, it is NOT entirely incorrect to say the death in Romans 6:23 is referring to the second death (from the perspective of God), and it is also NOT quite wrong to say that the same death was referring to first death, physical death (along the line of interpreting “dying you die” of Gen 2:17), but commonly I DO reference it to second death, solely because if we say it is the first death, much explanation, like what I have done above, needs to be given, for most people will argue back, saying experience is pointing to a man who commits a sin, is not necessarily going to die (physical, first death) from THAT sin. That is why, I always warn people, and I remind myself, NOT to form theology purely out of our experiences, but to regard our experiences as testifying to theology derived solely based on the Word. In the same light, it is worth mentioning that a number of true occurrences do NOT make a truth; people also need to be careful NOT to confuse true occurrences with truth.

It is also worth mentioning that because the lack of understanding of death in Gen 2:17, and the insistence of saying death of Romans 6:23 is the physical, first death, without understanding of the underlying explanation, coupled with human weakness of only wanting to recognize sight, some have even spun out their own theology of implying there is difference between the wages of sin before entry into salvation and the same, after entry into salvation. Nowhere in Scripture, is there mentioned such a notion that the same sin that one commits after entry into salvation is any different from that, before salvation. Also, do NOT listen to overly grace believers, and their teachers, who tell you Romans 6:23 is NOT referring to believers, because the author was referring to believers in that passage.

The scholar’s understanding of Romans 6:23 pointing to physical death did NOT comprise the correct underlying explanation; he just erroneously assigned the PHYSICAL attribute to the SECOND death.

The scholar’s argument that the famous John 3:16 verse should be taken at face value, suggesting the word, “perish” in it, be taken at face value to mean “consumed”. The Greek word there, “apollymi” (G622) does NOT just refer to physical death. It has non-physical death meanings which included the followings: to be put out of the way entirely, render useless, give over to eternal misery in Hell, to be lost, to be in ruin. In fact, it has NO less non-physical death connotations than physical ones!

Similar arguments can be said of Matt 10:28 – “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” The “destroy” in it, is the same Greek word, “apollymi” (G622), which I have just seen in John 3:16. The soul here, as referred to Man, is always the spirited soul, and is NOT physical. As to the issue of “soul and BODY” in Hell, like I said earlier, even if non-believers (or any men) are given a certain body after death, that body’s physical attribute is NOT the same as our flesh. The “destruction” in Hell even of the BODY (of those NOT going to Heaven) is NOT physical in the sense that we are quickly consumed, no more, vanished!

{Added 11 Oct 2011 - An Old Testament Professor's views
1. Only God is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) - Now, the scholar, as I have said above, is of the view that the soul or I prefer to called it, the spirited soul, is immortal only after receiving salvation. The Professor views that the soul does NOT live on when we die. He quoted 1 Tim 1:16 that only God is immortal, and he also said that the inhabitants of Shoel was never referred to as "nephesh" (soul). But he admitted to Old Testament (OT) talking about both living nephesh and dead nephesh. (My view is that "dead" does NOT mean "no more". For example, a spiritually dead soul can be revived, by God!) My view is this: We need to get the perspective right. This is what 1Tim 6:13-16 reads:

13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Now, the above was the Apostle Paul's charge to Timothy which started at verse 11. Verse 16 was indeed a description of God, that God alone is immortal, and God lives in unapproachable light. The professor is implying that because it was said that God ALONE is immortal it cannot be that man (or man's soul or spirit or spirited soul) can be immortal. Is he then denying the eternality of his own life, a believer! Is eternal life a fake! No, God is immortal of His own, immortality is of Him; He is Life; He is the source of life, He is the Beginning and the End. We, believers, have immortality, our immortality is a derived immortality, an immortality sourced in God. It is the same with concept of God lives in unapproachable light, so we cannot be walking in the light? No, Scriptures talked about and exhorted us to walk in the light, and we will have fellowship with God and with fellow believers. It said "unapproachable" light, right there, in 1 Tim 6:16, how then can we walk in the light, it is just like granted immortality, we are granted approach into light. It is also self-contraditory of the Professor to say that the soul die on physical death, and then agree with the scholar's argument that the soul (and the body) can still be "perished" (killed) in Hell. As to when Man has the capacity for eternal life, I have expressed my view earlier on.

2. God punished in the OT to the 3rd and 4th generation (Exodus 34:6-7), and since OT is shadow of the NT, consistently, the punishment in NT should have an end. Again, it is an issue of perspective. What is expressed in that Exodus text concerned "punishment while men live" which can even be called chastisement, while punishment in Hell is "punishment in finality". Just because there is a stop to God's punishment for the living (earthly life) in the OT does NOT necessarily mean that there has to be a stop to the punishment post death (post physical death).

3. Professor's conclusion - "After comparing the teachings of the New Testament with what I knew about what the Old Testament teaches, it is obvious to me that what The Fire That Consumes teaches reflects the true Biblical teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked." I say, while Scripture does NOT contradict itself, the NT does supersede certain (and certain only) positions of the OT, and there are clarifications and expansion of existing truths. The position that the fire of Hell is the fire that torments also does NOT contradict the OT, and it does relfect the true Biblical teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked."}

Minor or Major?
Whether or NOT the spirited soul is consumed or being tormented over time in the burning fire of Hell, is NOT a major point, but the refusal to accept the revealed will of God as written in the Word, that the loving God can send someone to be tormented in burning fire of Hell is NOT minor. It is a failure to appreciate the ultimate form of love of God for Man, is "loving Man unto righteousness" (a specific `ahab love). Ultimately, God can only love Man unto righteousness; meaning if you refused righteousness, you leave God no choice, but to have you away, eventually, in the burning lake of fire of Hell.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – What God did NOT reveal at all (NOT even clue), any view is pure speculation; it means nothing even if you get it right, and it also means nothing when you get it wrong. Outside of the time frame revealed by God, what God will do with the spirited souls in burning fire of Hell, only He knows, if He chooses NOT to reveal it, I accept it as it is. I only need to be faithful to those that He has chosen to reveal.

PS: If the scholar (conditionalist) is arguing that after all the torment, God is going to annihilate the spirits trapped in the burning fire of Hell, he has to be clear about that, but my post-reading of his arguments (his own writings), did NOT reveal that picture; they picture more of accusations of erroneous interpretations of traditionalists of Scriptures and their blatant importing of heresies, which (both sets of accusations) I do NOT agree. I still insist if finally God annihilates the spirits there, that picture is NOT yet apparent from the counsel of the Word, and yet to be seen.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.

Good works explained (PART II)

2011-06-22T22:12:00.000-07:00

Unto God
In PART I of this series, I have said that we must consider works from the perspective of God. Some time back I wrote an article on Keeping Christmas; you may access this article, here: Keeping Christmas. In the writing of that article, I believed the inspiration for the story there, of the 3 men (friends) came from the Spirit of God. That story, as well as whether or not, Christmas is of any significance depends on whether Romans 14:6 is being subscribed to.

He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God (Romans 14:6).

Things we do which we regard them NOT unto the Lord, chances are that they are NOT good works. This is, of course, a “big picture” guidance.

Going fishing!
Is going for a weekend fishing at the seaside, a good works? Now, looking at the activity per se, perhaps, it is NOT a good works; what does fishing at the seaside got to do with the Lord? Of course, directly, the activity per se, does NOT have anything to do with the Lord.

Let us twist it a little bit; if the Lord says to you in a dream or a vision to go to such and such a seaside, at such and such a time, to fish there, and He will show you what to do when you are there, it will be a completely different thing; your going to fish at that seaside that weekend is a good works, in accordance to the will of God.

What if there is no such vision or dream, can it still be a good works? Well, it depends, and many different scenarios can come into the picture, but I will just mention 2 more to illustrate at the end of day, above all else, wisdom and judgment must be applied, with big pictures and certainties (what we know without ambiguity) kept in mind:

Let us say, now, you skip your weekend church services so that you can go fishing every weekend; that will NOT be a good works, will it? No, bad works more likely. Next, assuming you are NOT skipping church services, and you are going fishing, because you, too, need to take breaks and have some recreation, and fishing is something you would like to do, to unwind. In this case, maybe, that is a good works, if you believe with those unwinds, you are better able to cope with stresses of life and even more able to serve God because of your rested-ness, and God does NOT suggest to you otherwise. Is it unto God? You think about it! At the worst, it is perhaps, “no works”, but NOT bad works.

Not to be paranoia, but good works matters
I am NOT suggesting people be paranoia, always insisting everything we do must amount to good works. We should avoid bad works though. Doing much good works is good, but I cannot prescribe how much is enough or how much is NOT enough. I believe no one really knows, but the message of Romans 14:6 is NOT complete without me giving the next few verses following:

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:6)

7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:7-9)

We can see from the above verses, a believer is NO longer supposed to live to himself alone; he cannot just do his own things only; he has to live to the Lord, meaning we belong to the Lord. 1 Cor 6:19-20 reads as follow:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20).

While I cannot tell you, how much good works are required of each of us, for even the words of Jesus on “Who are the sheep and goats” which spoke about the need of doing good works by believers, did NOT elaborate on the quantum required thereof, verse 9 above of Romans 14, clearly stated that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all believers. It is really heretic, in my view to teach, as it is being done by some Free Grace teachers, that Salvation and Lordship of Jesus are separate, that one can have salvation without submitting to His Lordship.

In my separate article, “Who are the sheep and who are the goats”, I suggested that readers should seriously consider that the sheep referred to by Jesus are believers with good works. You should read it.

In “Luke 6:46 - PART I – Salvation and Lordship are together”, I argued that salvation and Lordship are necessarily together, for I believe, at the end of day, God is only admitting to Heaven those whom He knows will come under his Lordship. True, He is the Lord of all (regardless our acceptance of Him), but He is after a kingdom in Heaven of men who would embrace His Lordship wholeheartedly (we know that angels who did not, were “kicked out”). If you are NOT, why should you be there? To oppose God, or to incur wrath in Him? Yes, I mentioned in that article, works per se, is NOT what God is after, but obedience to His Lordship is; however, it is also clear that good works is a product of a life of submission unto His Lordship.

Will I make the mark?
If what I said is of truth, how do we know if we would make the mark {on submission to His Lordship, and therefore, good works}, and God will admit us (to Heaven)? I cut paste this from my “Salvation and Lordship are together” article mentioned above:

“We live in faith, through faith, and by faith. And faith is spelled as “R I S K”. I used to want that it should be a clear-cut issue, yes or no (it is common human tendency), but you know what, that is being legalistic! There is one thing, we cannot miss when we study the ministry of Jesus when He walked the earth, and that is He was against legalism. If it were 100%, or God MUST do it, it is NOT faith, it is legalism.”

There is no clear-cut answer; that is what a life of faith is about, we try to know more of God’s ways and will, for us, put into practice, and obey as much as possible, and rest in our trust in God, in His justice and righteousness, in His love and faithfulness (Ps 89:14), and in His wisdom and judgment. A scripture that is close to what I am trying to portray is this:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence (1 John 3:18-19).

Warning, nothing is hidden, though
Two set of verses pointed very clearly nothing, including sins, bad works, and good works, are hidden. 1 Timothy 5:24-25 read as follow:

24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. (1 Tim 5:24-25).

As a side, verse 24 actually suggests that some people’s sins (including believers) are known and judged summarily (without delay), for some others, their sins would be known and judged later (but NOT ignored, or escape judgment). This, in my view, contradicts some overly grace teachers’ teaching that believers will NEVER be judged anymore when they had already been judged on entry into salvation; in line with their erroneous (in my view) notion that even the FUTURE sins of a believer had been forgiven him at his MOMENT of entry into salvation. Verse 25 clearly said that good works are treated by God likewise; some are noted summarily, and perhaps, even “rewarded”, but others that are NOT yet openly made known, they will be surfaced later, NOT hidden, NOT lost, NOT, not taken into account subsequently.

The other verse which confirms God knows everything concerning the believers is this:

Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his [a],” (2 Tim 2:19a).

The footnote [a] to the NIV version of this verse actually references the verse back to Numbers 16:5 where a group of Levites was trying to usurp the powers and the sacred duties assigned to the High Priest. The incident and how it was finally settled, showed among others, 2 things: one, God knows who are His and who is supposed to do what, and what was done by who, nothing is hidden from God, and two, as was previously pointed by me in my separate article, “Don’t play, play, words from the mouths of favored men of God can be powerful”, God can just be listening to the words of His favored servants, and do as the servants pronounced!

Simply put, we cannot fool God, for God neither slumber nor sleep (Ps 121:4); whether or not our works are unto Him, He knows; whether or not, we are doing in submission to His Lordship, He knows. Those who read my Salvation and Lordship article mentioned above, would remember that I said this, “Submission is not blind or Lordship cannot be accidental. By submission is not blind, I mean one does not submit to nothingness, in other words, when one submits, one is submitting to someone or something, otherwise, it is not submission. Lordship is not accidental, is to mean you cannot say, “But, I also did that what, can’t you, God, just count it that I done it, in submission to you?” Good works is about works unto the Lord, and it is about submission unto the Lord, even as it is works from and of faith, the understanding we arrived at, from PART I of this article series.

Must submission necessarily implied works?
Not must, but it almost inevitably does. Very simply, being submissive to one, means we do as being told; yah, we do something. To me, even loving God is works! Love does NOT do nothing! We are told to love God. Does that tell us to do nothing? Or do our own things? No, loving God is NOT doing nothing. Still have doubts, read again 1 John 3:18-19 (given above). We do, do our own things, but that is NOT exactly connected to submission.

I have a son, and he does, do his own things (play computer games, etc, etc), but his doing such, per se, do NOT indicate his submission to me, his father. If I tell him NOT to do his own thing (say, play computer games) for an hour, and he obliges, that is submission. Sure, if I had not told him that he could NOT do his own things like playing computer games, he, by playing computer games does NOT indicate that he is NOT submissive to me, but it also does NOT indicate that he is submissive.

To be submissive to God, you are to do (or NOT to do) something; in other words, you effort or labor (well, to refrain is also effort-lah) in accordance to the desires of God. Of course, if God says, “Go, play some computer games, and have some fun”; then that too, is works. Love God and love people are works, worship God is works, even as such are acting in submission to God.

Jesus’ bringing us salvation through His works on the Cross, the redemptive works of our Lord, when we embrace that salvation, we have said, we also need necessarily embrace submission to His Lordship, for His redemptive works include redeeming our works or purpose aspect of our lives. If you read my separate article, “Works of redemption of our Lord”, you will realize that the Lord NOT only wanted to grant us eternal life (spiritual redemption), and give us, in our next life, an incorruptible body (final part of physical redemption), but also to give us back works or purpose of life (works/purpose redemption). All 3-fold redemptive works start immediately upon entry into salvation, but they are NOT FINISHED in the blink of an eye, despite Jesus’ saying, “It is finished” on the Cross.

Overly grace teachers who tell you that you are FINISHED, NOT work in progress in anyway, are creating their own theology. Just because Jesus said, “It is finished”, did NOT mean you are finished, perfected. Jesus was simply expressing He (NOT you) has finished the works His Father had wanted Him to do. Jesus knew what He must do and He did what He must do to complete the assignment God had given Him. Honestly, if I do what I WANT, going forward, I cannot be sure of my eternal life; and I have NOT my incorruptible body yet, physical redemption surely NOT finished for me yet; and directly in connection with what we discussed here (works), I have a long way to go, in learning submission, and do works pleasing unto God; I am a Christian of many years now, but still I am NOT fully aligned to God’s ways to function fully in the works/purposes He has for me, rather I am still spending a lot of time doing “my things” (Please, I am NOT suggesting you condemn yourself; that would NOT be what God would have intentioned, even if you are a lazy bum or a selfish fellow. You are exhorted to move in the right direction, and NOT to condemn yourself in the existing spot.) Seriously, to walk in the redemptive works of our Lord, we are to produce fruit from good works in our lives; it is NEVER JUST basking in grace, even though, you can bask in grace, and sometimes, and for some believers, some basking, indeed, would do them good, but that is another matter, altogether. Christians are to do good works (Eph 2:10).

Anthony Chia, high.expressions - The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt 3:10).

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: ... {click on it to reveal complete address}

Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.