Why I think Isaiah 53 was about Jesus and not the nation of Israel

The NIV link for the entire Isaiah 53 passage is given here (click it).

2 Schools of thought
There are 2 schools of thought on this, one thinks that Isaiah was talking about the nation Israel, another, Jesus. Many Jewish theologians subscribe to the former, and many modern Christians, the latter. This article is not aimed at creating dispute on the matter; although many Jews did not believe Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah, and so missed Jesus, or are giving Jesus, a miss.

Why I am interested
I will explain my interest in this matter. Firstly, it is important as a Christian of many years to seriously study the Word of God to learn more about God and his ways. In fact, the more I studied the Bible I found that it is important to know the faith heritage. And there are stories in the Bible, of individuals (like Gideon) who knew and understood much of the faith heritage and was honored by God, and there are stories about those (like Jephthah) who did not know enough, did not understand God’s dealings with man, and misapplied the little knowledge they had, and the results were that their actions displeased God.

More specifically, in relation to Isaiah 53, for those who argued that Jesus or the Messiah was portrayed there, they could see “the cross” in the passage. Let me explain: Every Christian should learn to understand the work of the cross, what happened at the cross? What was accomplished at the cross? What did the crucifixion of Jesus mean? What power was there on the cross? Could we claim healing from the work on the cross? If so, was the healing only spiritual? What about physical healing, emotional healing, psychological disorders? Are they all covered? Is salvation sure? What does salvation cover? Is healing part of salvation? Which aspect is sure? Is healing a sure thing? What about peace? Is it also part of the work of the cross? The word of God is important. Jesus Himself used them against Satan who also used them against Jesus in trying to tempt Jesus when He came out of His pre-ministry fasting. Those who see the Messiah in Isaiah 53 see these things in the passage, and they want to understand them, access them, and use them. Then there are those who thought they saw these things in the passage but they were told the passage was not about Jesus, and so, they could not claim them as part of the work of the cross.

There was one discussion I came across, concerning healing, and one party was saying God did mention about healing the land, and that healing did not mean people got healed, and so, by the same token, if Isaiah 53 was not about the Messiah, the healing spoken in Isaiah 53:5 was only for the nation of Israel as a whole or for the land. So, you see, we have to make up our mind, whether or not, Isaiah 53 was about Jesus, before we talk about healing for the individuals, using Isaiah 53:5. In fact, another angle surfaced in that discussion; it was whether healing was only spiritual and did not include physical or psychological ones. Again, we have to make up our mind whether or not, a man was being talked about in the Isaiah passage, or it was all just a metaphor for the nation or the land.

I know from elsewhere, in the Bible, we too, can come to certain conclusions about some aspects of the cross, but Isaiah 53 was so direct, if correctly, Jesus was being portrayed there.


What supports my conclusion?
Now let us look at what I have to support my belief that Isaiah 53 was talking about Jesus.

Thematic flow
I have taken time to study Isaiah 48 right up to Isaiah 53. I believe often times, because we take too small a bite at Scripture passages, we miss the flow and the connectivity of the verses. For those who want to say that the original scriptures did not have chapters, I know that. My conclusion is that there are 2 blocks here. You can have more if you break it down further. But I cannot come to the conclusion that it is one block, i.e. Isaiah 48 to Isaiah 53 is one big block. The thematic flow started in Isaiah 48 stopped at the end of Isaiah 52. I believe, one who takes the time to study Isaiah 48 to Isaiah 53 at one sitting, is capable of coming to the same conclusion. When you spend the time to rewrite the verses in easy to understand English with considerations of the parties (including such things as first person, second person, and so on) involved in the scriptures, you might agree with me Isaiah 53 is quite separate from the preceding texts.

There are those who said that what was being written in Isaiah 53 did not start at verse 1 of Isaiah 53, but from verse 13 of Isaiah 52; you can adopt that if you like. I like to look at the last 3 verses of Isaiah 52 (vv13-15) as capable of referring to both the nation of Israel or Jesus. The only thing is that the proponents of the other school of thought will say that verse 13 specifically used the phrase “my servant” (in the 2nd person) which in Isaiah 49:3, was referring to Israel. Rather, I would leave the last 3 verses of Isaiah 52 alone, and not take it to refer to Jesus, because the “third person” language really started in verse 2 of Isaiah 53, and used consistently throughout Isaiah 53.

One may argue that there is one anomaly to the “third person” language usage in Isaiah 53; and that would be in Isaiah 53:11 where “my righteous servant” was used. According to Jewish theologians, the English translation of the Hebrew text should have rendered the phrase as “my servant” and not “my righteousness servant”. Accordingly they claimed that the translation should read as “with his knowledge my servant will vindicate the righteous before the magnitudes, ….” Instead of “by his knowledge my righteous servant justify many”. In that case, I would say that Isaiah 53:11 could read like this:

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
with his knowledge my servant will vindicate many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

I merely substituted the word, “by” with “with”, the phrase, “my righteous servant” with “my servant”, and the word, “justify” with “vindicate”. And the meaning of Isaiah 53:11b would be: with the knowledge of Jesus, Israel would exonerate many {many in Israel would be exonerated}, and Jesus would bear their iniquities. Looking at it this way, although, indeed Israel appears in the verse, the third person Jesus (he) still flowed consistently. Even when the word “justify” was not used in the verse, it did not imply there was no justification element in the verse; the fact that it said Jesus would bear their iniquities implied justification. I also honestly believe in the last days, many Israelites would be saved, and Jesus would bear their iniquities. I know Gentile Christians would like to see “Israel” not in the verse, but we must understand that it is also possible for relevance to the targeted audience, “Israel” was inserted intentionally by God. The opening up of the faith to the Gentile was only made known to all in the New Testament Time; even the Apostles, initially did not know it. The Apostle Peter, for example, had to be given a vision before he understood that God had opened up the gospel to the Gentiles.

Psalm 44 – no tenable connection
I do not agree with the author, on the topic of Isaiah 53, on Wikipedia, claiming that Psalm 44 is probably the best defense for reading Isaiah 53 as applicable to the nation of Israel {and therefore, not about Jesus}. There is no tenable connection between this Psalm and Isaiah 53.

Philip and the Ethiopian
In the Book of Acts, we read of an account of Philip and the Ethiopian. God, through an angel, arranged for Philip to meet with the Ethiopian eunuch who was then reading Isaiah 53. The relevant scriptures are given below (Acts 8:26-35):

26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[d]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."{Isaiah 53:7-8}

34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

The eunuch was reading the passage of Isaiah 53:7-8. Not knowing who was being referred to, he asked Philip who was being referred to in the passage, was it the Prophet Isaiah or someone else. Philip took the opportunity, and starting from that very passage of Scripture, explained the gospel of Jesus to the eunuch. I believe this is a deliberate act of God, to have this account recorded in the New Testament for us; and this tells us that it was the Messiah, Jesus, who was being portrayed in Isaiah 53.

[added 05/01/2011: Even the Apostle John, understood that Isaiah 53 was referring to Jesus, for in the Gospel of John, at John 12:37-38, in revealing the response of the people (principally, the Jews) towards Jesus' ministry and teaching, John made reference to this Isaiah 53, verse 1, saying that, indeed as was written in Isaiah 53:1, only some of the Jews would believe the Messiah, Jesus, when He came walking on this earth.]

[added 10/03/2011: The Apostle Matthew wrote in Matt 8:16-17, that Jesus was healing the sick and delivering people from demon-possessions as part of the fulfilment of Isaiah 53:4. This, of course, pointed to Isaiah 53 was indeed referring to Jesus.]

If you can accept my reasoning here, the next time you read Isaiah 53, claim it as a portrayal of the Messiah, Jesus; see “the cross” in the passage, and claim the power and benefits in that passage.



Anthony Chia - And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Tim 2:24)

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.

Judges series - Judges 11

The way to read this article is that the orange underlined texts are the verses of the Bible (NIV, unless otherwise stated). The black texts following the Bible verses (and enclosed by square brackets) are my commentaries. At the end of these Bible texts and commentaries, I have inserted a section on "Points to take note/What we have learnt/can learn".
{For full listing of all articles in this series, click here}

Jephthah (a not so glorifying judge?)

1 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. His father was Gilead; his mother was a prostitute. 2 Gilead's wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. "You are not going to get any inheritance in our family," they said, "because you are the son of another woman." 3 So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob, where a group of adventurers gathered around him and followed him. [According to the chronicles, in 1 Ch 7:14, Gilead was the son of Makir who descended from Manasseh. So Jephthah who was the son of Gilead, was a Manasseh, even though his mother was a prostitute. Because of his mother’s status, he was driven away by his half brothers, to the land of Tob, where he acquired some followers. Jephthah, like Gideon who was also a Manasseh, was a mighty warrior.] 4 Sometime later, when the Ammonites made war on Israel, 5 the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. 6 "Come," they said, "be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites." 7 Jephthah said to them, "Didn't you hate me and drive me from my father's house? Why do you come to me now, when you're in trouble?" 8 The elders of Gilead said to him, "Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead." 9 Jephthah answered, "Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me—will I really be your head?" 10 The elders of Gilead replied, "The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say." 11 So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah. [When the Ammonites made war, the elders of Gilead pleaded with Jephthah to come to their aid, to be their commander, and promised Jephthah, headship over Gilead, if he won over the Ammonites] 12 Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question: "What do you have against us that you have attacked our country?" 13 The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah's messengers, "When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably." 14 Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king, 15 saying: "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites. 16 But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh. 17 Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, 'Give us permission to go through your country,' but the king of Edom would not listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel stayed at Kadesh. 18 "Next they traveled through the desert, skirted the lands of Edom and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border. [The first thing that Jephthah did was to send messengers to the Ammonites king to ask him why the Ammonites would attack the Israelites. The Ammonite king replied and said that when the Israelites came up out of Egypt, they took away the lands of the Ammonites, so now they wanted it back. Jephthah replied and said that, that was not the correct account of what happened. Jephthah said the Israelites then did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites. In fact, the Israelites only wanted permissions to pass through the land. I believe Jephthah’s account was correct.

Do you know who were the Moabites and Ammonites? They were the descendants of Lot, the nephew of Abraham. Abraham had made a treaty with Lot that they shall not fight over territories. Abraham gave Lot the first right to choose the land he wanted to go, and Abraham said whichever way Lot would take, he would go the other way. Lot decided to stay in the rich plains of Jordan where Sodom and Gomorrah were, and Abraham ended up heading the other way. These were recorded in Genesis 13. In Genesis 18, Abraham pleaded with the Lord for the sparing of the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe Abraham was thinking about his nephew, Lot, in his plea to the Lord. In Genesis 19, we read that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. On the account of Abraham’s plea, by right, Lot’s family would have been spared but because Lot’s wife turned back, she was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot had 2 daughters and future sons-in-laws but because the latter did not believe the coming destruction of the cities, they were destroyed. Lot ended up settling in the mountains with his 2 daughters. In Genesis 19:30-36, we read that the daughters slept with their fathers and each had a son through their father, Lot. The older daughter’s son was called Moab, and became the father of the Moabites. The younger daughter’s son was called Ben-Ammi, and became the father of the Ammonites. These things, I believe, the Israelites then knew, and had honored Abraham’s treaty and his love for his nephew, Lot.] 19 "Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and said to him, 'Let us pass through your country to our own place.' 20 Sihon, however, did not trust Israel to pass through his territory. He mustered all his men and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel. 21 "Then the LORD, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his men into Israel's hands, and they defeated them. Israel took over all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country, 22 capturing all of it from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan. [These verses talked about Amorites. The Amorites were not nearly as close to the Israelites as the Moabites and Ammonites, as explained above. The Moabites and Ammonites (through Lot) and Israelites (through Abraham, Israel {aka Jacob}) all came from the same blood line leading back to Shem, son of Noah. The Amorites, on the other hand, were descended from (through Canaan) Ham, son of Noah. Because the Amorites chose to fight the Israelites instead of letting them through, the Lord gave them over to the Israelites.] 23 "Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? 24 Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess. 25 Are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them? 26 For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn't you retake them during that time? 27 I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites." [So, Jephthah reasoned to the Ammonite king that since the Lord God gave the land of the Amorites over to the Israelites, the latter had to accept it. Furthermore, for 300 years that Israel occupied the land, the Ammonites did not come claiming, why now. Jephthah ended with the saying, “Let the Lord decide”. When it became a matter to be decided by the Lord, the necessity of the Israelites honoring Abraham’s good intention would also be decided by the Lord, in the light of this development.] 28 The king of Ammon, however, paid no attention to the message Jephthah sent him. [The Ammonite king ignored Jephthah’s explanation, I believe to his own detriment.] 29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." [The Lord commissioned with his Spirit coming upon the one he had chosen. I believe it was true then, it is still true now – empowering by the Holy Spirit is so needed in ministry. What was puzzling was whether or not Jephthah’s vow was necessary? Had he not vowed would he still have victory? You will read later, the sad consequence of the vow.] 32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. [Complete victory!] 34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break." [Oh no, his one and only child, his daughter, came out to meet him. His daughter must be offered as burnt offering!] 36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." 38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. [The verses are self-explanatory. What I want to dwell on is that Jephthah fulfilled his vow, just as he had vowed to the Lord. Nothing was said here that it was aborted or that the Lord stopped Jephthah. I think Jephthah really made a big mistake with the vow, not that I have not done stupid thing of a similar, but not the same, nature, before.

One stupid thing I did was this: I prayed for the shifting of my (continual) blessings (maybe a clear word is favor) to another out of love. I have since realized it was a silly thing to do, the consequence of it was so painful, and it did not glorify God. This could even give the devil a foothold in our lives. If someone is lacking in something, wealth, health or whatsoever, NEVER pray the shifting of your own blessings (favor) to the person, or ask that you suffer in place of them, like taking over their sickness or bearing their pain. If we read the Bible thoroughly enough we will realize how important, the blessings (favor) of God were viewed in the Bible. Bless people but not give your blessings (favor) away no matter how much you love another.

If you have $10K, and you want to give it away, give it away but do not give away your blessings (favor). If you want to give away one of your 2 kidneys, give it away, but do not give away your blessings (favor). Giving away your own blessings (favor) does not glorify God. Do you know why? It does not glorify God because you are saying God has too little to give - if it was given to you, He had no more to give to another. It is not like in a musical chair game, where there is always a shortage; someone is going to be left stranded with no chair (no blessings/favor). You do not give up your blessings (favor) like you would give up a chair in a musical chair game. If God has one stream of blessings for you, He can also make another stream of blessings for your loved ones. If your loved one is sick, ask God to heal him/her. Don't ask God to let you be sick so that he/she can be well, or let you take his/her place of sickness or pain. Our God is not so small and with limited resource to give or distribute, that you need to sacrifice yours. I think I am clear, I am not asking you not to be generous, that would be wrong, I am saying give or ask God to give but do not give away the blessings (favor) God intended for you. It is disastrous to be caught without the blessings/favor/protection of God in this fallen world.

Back to Jephthah, some commentators tried to give him the benefit of doubt or did not want to make it sound like a judge appointed by God could be so stupid. God used all kinds of people in the course of dealing with man over the centuries. We cannot say they would not make mistakes or erred. Only Jesus would not have made a mistake, all others could. Even Moses and King David made mistakes, even committed serious sins. We got to be objective, and we are to learn from mistakes made by Biblical characters. They were recorded not without reasons.

While we can sympathize with Jephthah, what he did was wrong. The sympathetic circumstances included these: This land that Jephthah lived on, historically was a place where great evils and abominations were done. We already said earlier on, because of the evils done, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God directly (not through destruction by wars, etc).

Judges 10:6 listed for us, so many gods being worshipped in the midst of the Israelites. Jephthah was living in such a place and such a time. Furthermore, he came from a broken family setting, his mother was a prostitute; his half-brothers disliked him and drove him away. He got into gang-hood and acquired followers. Some of the pagan worship practices involved human sacrifices, including burnt offering of children. The gods, Chemosh, referred to in verse 24 and Moloch/Molech/Milcom were the gods of the Moabites and Ammonites, although verse 24 was said to have implied that Ammonites also worshipped Chemosh (god of Moabites). Some even regarded them as the same god, which could have been, but by the time of King Solomon’s reign, evolved to be worshipped as separate deities, for in the fall of Solomon in this regard, built separate altars for the 2 gods (1 Kings 11:7). This was not unusual as the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites were half-brothers, fathered by Lot with his own 2 daughters, they all stayed at the same land. The point is the worship of Molech/Moloch/Milcom involved l’molech – the passing of children through fire as an offering to the god, and this was specifically forbidden by the Lord (Lev 18:21, 20:2-5). In a separate account, in the subsequent period of time (but I mention it here, as a proof of practice), a Moab King, when was desperately fending off the Israelites, sacrificed his son (his heir) at the city walls.

Jephthah was desperate to win, and in his desperation he made a vow that he shouldn’t have; he probably got influenced by pagan practices, and did not have enough proper guidance from his family concerning things of the Lord. God chose him nevertheless, this we must accept.

The things against him were these: He knew what he was vowing. Firstly, he obviously knew that a person was most likely to come out of the house to meet him, not an animal, a sheep, for example. Secondly, he was referring to a burnt offering sacrifice. Come on, since when did domestic house roaming animals were being used as sacrifices to the Lord. Animals used for sacrifices were good unblemished animals {Comparatively, see what Gideon, also a Manasseh warrior, did, in Judges 6:17-24, my article – Judges series – Judges 6 (on Gideon being called) }.

Jephthah knew every well, the “whatever” was going to a person. That he was not thinking that it was abominable to the Lord to offer a burnt human sacrifice was unacceptable. I do not want to go at length, into how come the Lord did not censure him, or how he managed to make the sacrifice, in view of Lev 20:2-5; maybe he did it secretly, like his original vow which was perhaps given privately. We have to accept that he was used by the Lord for the purpose of fighting off the Ammonites despite hearing his vow. But we know that the prohibition clearly spelled out in Leviticus still stood then, even in the subsequent period (King Josiah torn down the high places built by King Solomon for Chemosh and Molech {2Kings 23:13, 23:10}), yet the Lord allowed this man to win the war. What this reminds me is that when an isolated supernatural good thing is done by a man, it does not mean the man is one whom God is pleased with. There can be hundred and one reasons why God has a certain thing done, supernaturally, and the reason(s) got nothing to do with the man used. The man could just be an instrument to achieve the purpose(s) God wanted to achieve. It can be just a case of “it so happens God uses the man”. It is the repeated use of the man by God that would show something. Don’t go bowled-over each time you see a man performs a supernatural act. Find out whether or not there is consistency for that man. If there is, he is probably a “man of God”, otherwise he could just happen to be at the right place at the right time.

For this article, I would not separately spell out what we could learn from it. The extended commentary of mine above, amply explained the points that I believe, we should learn.]



Anthony Chia – Children sacrifices turns the hearts of fathers against their children and the hearts of the children against their fathers; and was and is detestable by God. Also, know that our God is a big God; He does not need to deprive one so that He can bless another. By all means, pray for God to bless another, but do not pray the shifting of your own blessings to another.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com
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.

Durian or papaya?

Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember 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)

Many of us may be rather old in our faith, but not necessarily more mature. Do we still bother with listening to, or reading the Word of God? Perhaps, you still go to church services and listen to sermons being preached by your pastors, but do you do that just as a matter of habit? Yes, going to church, to many of us, sometimes, has become so habitual, that we just go to church at the specified time; the reason being that, that is the thing to do for that time slot of the week. I am not saying that it is not the thing to do, going to church services without fail, week in, week out, but are we doing it as a matter of first love, which is the correct attitude exhorted by Jesus, through John, in the Book of Revelation, when He addressed one of the 7 churches in the province of Asia?

For the Ephesians church, Jesus said He had this against them, that they had lost touch with their first love, and no longer did the things they first did. But, you will protest, you probably think in your heart that you have been, and are still doing the things you used to do when you first knew Jesus, your love; you have been and still going to church services. Or in the first place, you might have asked what does Jesus’ words, against the old church, got to do with present day believers? Or, Wasn't the Book of Revelation about the End Time, why did Jesus talk about these 7 churches, in the first place? Isn’t it true that often, in letter writing or communication, what we write or talk about at the front part, after pleasantry, is important stuff; sometimes, even the most important, because it make sense to deal with important stuff first, before we move on, to more peripheral things? What does this indicate to us the importance of the messages Jesus left us with, in this front part of the Book of Revelation?

In the first place, the 7 churches that Jesus addressed were real churches that existed during John’s time. They were in modern day Turkey. The Patmos Island, on which, John received the revelation is still there, sitting in the Aegean Sea, and it is part of the islands of Greece. The churches no longer exist, but I believe Jesus had seen what had been happening to the churches, and He knew the tendencies of believers and the challenges of the churches. These tendencies and challenges would likely to be the same ones that we or the future generations of believers, would face. The Satan then and the Satan now and tomorrow, was, is and will be the same old Satan, the same old tricks, disguised in different shapes and forms. Man, in general, has also been the same. No wonder, the wise Solomon, said in Ecclesiastes (Eccl 1:9) that nothing is new under the sun. Jesus’ intention, I believe, then was to have these warnings, and encouragements, recorded for us, to take note, to walk in, in the faith, whether or not we live to see the End Time. Jesus merely used the 7 churches as illustrations, so that John would receive understanding by Jesus’ choice of examples. Jesus, even in His earthly ministry of some 3 years, liked to use everyday situations to teach or warn people. The Book of Revelation, therefore, minimally, should be looked at in 2 parts, the messages to the seven churches, and the visions of End Time. The former is relevant; in fact, a must for believers to understand well, take to heart, and walk in, and churches should preach them like they would preach the other so-called more relevant texts of the New Testament. This I believe is the correct frame of mind that we should have, when we look at “part 1” of the Book of Revelation.

Back to going to church services; yes, we still go to church but do we really do the first things we did. What do we do when we first fell in love with Jesus in respect to church services? Did you not try to be punctual? How did you worship then? How did you sing then? I remember when I was baptized “donkey years” ago, I worshiped like there was no tomorrow, and I still can visualize that I was, perhaps, wearing a red T-shirt, waving my hands, and clapping them, most joyously; and some foreign visitors were there, and they were filming away with their video camera, it was a sight they had to capture on seeing the passion and excitement of brothers and sisters who had just publicly declared that they would follow Jesus. How do you worship today? Are you just mouthing the words of the songs just because it is the polite thing to do? Or are you thinking about the embarrassment of being seen to be just there and not singing? Or you only sing when it comes to a song you like? Or do you catch yourselves wondering when this singing part will end, because you just want to move on? Do you still embrace your singing of praises and worship as living sacrifices unto the Lord?

The other most important part of the church liturgy is of course, the sermons. Do you still feed on the Word of God passionately? Or at least try to? I suspect many of us, not only do not feast on the Word of God; we do not even try to. If a very important person, maybe your company CEO, the city mayor, or even your Senior Pastor, invites you to a meal, you will at least try to be enthusiastic about the food laid before you, and eat some, regardless the kind of food he provided or ordered, spicy, “sourish”, plain, Malay, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexican, or even fast-food. Jesus looks on at each weekend service, and what does he see? Are you one of those who are in the category guilty of taking for granted the food Jesus provides?

If your spouse made you curry chicken, appreciate it and eat it. Afterwards, say, “Thank you, dear.” Just like you will not be bothered with who the chef behind the dishes, because your focus should be on the VIP in the example above, you are to focus on Jesus or God, not the speaker. It is the same, when your lover buys some beautiful roses and has it sent over to you, your focus should be on your lover because he or she is your love. Who will think about the gardener? Who will think about whether or not the gardener is a pretty woman or a handsome man before he or she will have the flowers. Or do you not want to accept the roses just because it was delivered by a crappy old man?

How do you listen now, compared with how you did so, when you were first in love with the Lord? Do you let the Word of God goes in, by one ear, and goes out the other? So many of us, no longer make any effort to retain any of the Word of God heard over the pulpit; the moment we leave the door of the sanctuary, we also seem to have let the Word of God out of the door of our heart. This is surely, not the thing we did at first.

We should regularly meditate on the Lord’s chastisement given to the Ephesians brethrens; that we are not to forsake our first love for the Lord, and omit to do the things we first did. The things we first did must be taken to include the attitude thereof. The next illustration is plain enough, not easy to do, but we are still told to do it; what more when it comes to the Lord: When we are in love, before marriage, when we meet to have a meal with “the him” or “the her”, we treat such occasions as a date; but after marriage, the connotation of a date completely disappeared for many of us. Many of us, do not even, occasionally, treat such occasions as a date, not to mention, every meeting-up and meal. This is a bad tendency we have, and was the first kind of issues Jesus addressed in His message to the churches in the Book of Revelation. We still meet, we still have a meal, but the attitude, and heart condition of first love we have not, or had forsaken. With the Lord, we should also not just say, we did this, we did that, but we have to ask ourselves the attitude and the heart condition when we did those things. It is both the omission of the things done, as well as the incorrect attitude and heart condition with which we did things, that we must bear in mind.

It is more important that we do what pleases the Lord than what we think will please the Lord. Let us say, for example, your “the him” or “the her” loved to eat durians, and you did not originally quite fancy that King of fruits. But you, through eating and eating with him/her, have come to acquire the taste and love for the powerfully smelling fruit. If for some strange reason, and it happens, your partner no longer likes to eat durians, but you continue to buy the fruit and want him/her to eat with you, he/she will not be pleased, although you think he/she will be. Strangely, or not so strangely, he/she now likes to eat papaya. What do you do? Go, eat papaya with him/her because that is what he/she likes you to do with him/her. Don’t just because, now that you have grown accustomed to eating durians that you should continue to dictate that the first love thing to do, is to feast on durians. You will be surprised he/she will say to you, “If you love me like you first loved me, eat papaya with me!”




Anthony Chia - Lord, I should not just look at not forsaking my first love for you but also see to it that my love for you will grow more and more. Lord, encourage me in my love for you.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com
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.

Judges series - Judges 10

The way to read this article is that the orange underlined texts are the verses of the Bible (NIV, unless otherwise stated). The black texts following the Bible verses (and enclosed by square brackets) are my commentaries. At the end of these Bible texts and commentaries, I have inserted a section on "Points to take note/What we have learnt/can learn".
{For full listing of all articles in this series, click here}


[Preface: Judges 10 covered a period after Abimelech, who previously had got himself installed as King by the citizens of Shechem. Although he operated from his father’s hometown, Ophrah, he was not really recognized as a legitimate King of the Israelites. The King’s period of the Jews did not start until King Saul was made the first King. After Abimelech, 2 judges were recorded here in Chapter 10, before another judge called Jephthah was raised. This Jephthah, we will read in details, in 2 subsequent chapters. Right now, very briefly, 2 judges would be mentioned, and the rest are the background about Israelites’ going back to the evil ways of forsaking the Lord, and serving other pagans gods; so much so that, God was very angry and He gave the Israelites over to her enemies, before He finally raised up Jephthah.]

Tola

1 After the time of Abimelech a man of Issachar, Tola son of Puah, the son of Dodo, rose to save Israel. He lived in Shamir, in the hill country of Ephraim. 2 He led Israel twenty-three years; then he died, and was buried in Shamir. [After Abimelech, Tola, raised as a judge, was from the tribe of Issachar, one of the 12 tribes of Israel. He led Israel for 23 years before he died.]

Jair

3 He was followed by Jair of Gilead, who led Israel twenty-two years. 4 He had thirty sons, who rode thirty donkeys. They controlled thirty towns in Gilead, which to this day are called Havvoth Jair. 5 When Jair died, he was buried in Kamon. [Gilead is part of the vast land before the crossing of the Jordan river into the Promised Land. From Numbers 32, 3 of the 12 tribes of Israel could have settled here. The 3 were Reuben, Gad and Manasseh. Drawing inference from Numbers 32:41, it was likely that Jair was a Manasseh, probably an old name got “resurrected” again by descendants of Manasseh. He led for 22 years.]
6 Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the LORD and no longer served him, 7 he became angry with them. He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites, 8 who that year shattered and crushed them. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites on the east side of the Jordan in Gilead, the land of the Amorites. 9 The Ammonites also crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin and the house of Ephraim; and Israel was in great distress. 10 Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, "We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals." [The classic, history repeated itself scenario with the Israelites of the “Judges” period. Only thing was that it must be very evil, that it was put in full writing in Bible recordings. The more the Israelites forsook God, the more God got displeased, the more He was likely to take away his hands of protection/blessing on the people. It was disastrous to live without the hands of protection/blessing of God. We read here, a number of the 12 Israel tribes were attacked by the enemies. As usual, in desperation, the Israelites cried out to God, telling God that they had sinned, and had forsaken God and had served Baals.]
11 The LORD replied, "When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, 12 the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? 13 But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. 14 Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!" [This time God was really upset and reminded the Israelites that He had been doing the same, saving them, only to have the Israelites times and times again, turned to pagan gods, and forsook the Lord. God literally said, “Why don’t you go and ask those pagan gods to save you since you have chosen them over me.”]
15 But the Israelites said to the LORD, "We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now." 16 Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the LORD. And he could bear Israel's misery no longer. [The Israelites decided to go into action, got rid of the foreign gods, and began to serve the Lord again. Meanwhile God noted the misery of the Israelites.]
17 When the Ammonites were called to arms and camped in Gilead, the Israelites assembled and camped at Mizpah. 18 The leaders of the people of Gilead said to each other, "Whoever will launch the attack against the Ammonites will be the head of all those living in Gilead." [When the Ammonites wanted to attack Gilead, the people of Gilead, looking for people to counter the Ammonites decided to entice warriors with the Gilead chief position.]




Anthony Chia – Turning away to worship other gods is to God, evil.

For I know that after my death {Moses} you {Israelites} are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made." (Deu 31:29)

But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways. (Judges 2:19)


Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com
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 may be wrong to say that God’s spiritual gifts are irrevocable

This article does NOT intend to dwell on what constituted spiritual gifts. I confine them to just the 9 spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. Others include the gifts found in Ephesians 4:11 and Romans 12:6-8. One thing for sure, "the gifts" are not referring to the gift of life or salvation. Whichever combinations you use to define spiritual gifts, I believe this article is equally applicable.


Romans 11:29 – better phrase is still “without repentance”
I heard people said that God’s gifts and his call for us are irrevocable, quoting Romans 11:29 – for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. (NIV). The use of the word “irrevocable” in the many Bible translations needs to be carefully examined. Actually, in my opinion, the old phrase “without repentance” should have been left intact. The old text from King James version is this: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” Contextually, there are be 2 possible meanings, but neither meant irrevocability:

1. the gifts and calling (salvation call) are by grace, or
2. the gifts and calling (salvation call) are without regret.


From the recipient viewpoint
The first interpretation puts the frame on the recipient. Contextually, the call referred to, is the salvation call. What is salvation call? It is the call of God to people to come into salvation. The “gifts” here is more open to varied interpretations, but contextually, it could refer to grace and mercy and favors granted (If you apply it in the corporate sense, which I will cover later in the article, it could include many more things, perhaps, including spiritual gifts). Contextually, when the frame is on the recipient, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, such gifts and call were given by grace, without any of them being worthy of, or had earned the gifts or call. The salvation call, for example, was given even when we were yet sinners.


From the giver viewpoint
The second interpretation puts the frame on the giver, God. Contextually, in simple language, it meant God gave the gifts or call without regret, or in other words God would never regret. I believe God never regret his actions. The only action coming close to “a regret” by God was the wiping out of all men except Noah and his family, in The Flood. Even then, I would not call it a regret. God is good all the time, and therefore all his actions are good. And so, He cannot regret His actions, even though He, in human terms, can be grieved, even greatly, as in the case of The Flood. This actually also means that God does not undo things, meaning He does not do what Superman, did in the movie, went back in time to redo a scene (to save his girlfriend) because He did not like what came afterwards. I strongly believe God does not go back in time, but has chosen to deal with man in chronological time (for the reason that He created man in a world of chronological time), and operated everything in real-time. He is capable of looking into time, and therefore can see what will happen in the future, but I believe He does not go back in time. He just keeps moving forwards, tweaking as He goes, but never goes back to redo. With this understanding, I believe it is also correct to say that God’s gifts and call are without regret; meaning He will not go back and re-decide not to give particular (previously given) gifts or calling. God always works with what is done is done, and moves forward from there, but it is not the same as saying that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. What is done is done, but it does not mean that God will not stop the operation of the gifts unless of course, if the gift is a one-off thing. Salvation calling can be regarded as a one-off thing which perhaps cannot be stopped, but under gifts, depending on the nature, a gift can be stopped. It is my belief that favors, grace and mercy, and spiritual gifts (like gift of healing, etc) can be stopped, although what was already “consumed” will not be touched/affected. So, in this sense, gifts are not irrevocable. I can accept salvation call as irrevocable, but not gifts, generally, on a personal basis (About gifts given corporately, the position might be slightly different, and I will cover it later).

{Added 20/12/2010 - Salvation call by God may be irrevocable, but a person can still renounce his salvation or does things to force the hand of God to let go of him, to head for Hell.}

A simple illustration:
Say, now there is a fraternity. To be accepted as a member of the fraternity, one has to meet certain criteria, and I make them very simple, you just need to be a man (not a woman), and a citizen of the country. And so, if you are a man, and you are a citizen of the country, and I pronounce that you are a member, I cannot afterwards, unless I change the criteria, or that you are either no longer a man or a citizen of the country, revoke your membership. In this sense, if I liken this to salvation call, it is irrevocable.

For gifts, let me illustrate in this way: Still using the fraternity above, say, you have already been admitted as a member, and I, the President of the fraternity decide to give free beer passes to members to have beer in a certain pub for a year. You did nothing, and you are not required to do anything or pay anything, the pass is given to you for free. The next year, I continue to give you the free pass. After 2 years, I now decide that I will no longer give free beer pass, and so you do not get one. But I did not ask that the previous 2 years’ free beer consumption be returned. I just stop giving you free beer pass, no more free flow of beer! I gave you the beer pass without regret, but the giving was not irrevocable.


Individual’s spiritual gift is not irrevocable
This verse, Romans 11:29, has become incorrectly used by people to say that God’s spiritual gifts to individuals are irrevocable. God may give an individual a lot of slack but if He wants to stop the operation of the gift in the individual, He can and will do it. The reason is simply because He did not say the gift is irrevocable. If He had said it, then He will be lying, and that will not do because He is not supposed to lie because He said He will not lie (Num 23:19). “By grace” and “irrevocable” are completely different things. When one is given a gift by grace, it meant that he is given the gift without him earning it or having made himself deserving of it. When one is given a gift and when it is said to be irrevocable (wrongly), it meant that he is given the gift and the operation of the gift will not be stopped for whatsoever reason. Now, I am not playing with words. In the first place, a gift meant a “thing” given. When we give a “thing”, it belongs to another, we actually cannot take it back; it is no longer ours. In this sense, it is redundant to say that a gift is irrevocable. A gift that is given out cannot be retrieved, unless the recipient is willing to give it back. The people who used “irrevocable” here, know the subject matter, the “thing” is something that still need the giver to operate it to be of any use.

For example, the gift of healing, for it to be of any use, God is needed to work the healing virtue through. So, the people who used the term irrevocable (the opposite, of course, is revocable), obviously meant that the operation will not be stopped by God. They cannot now argue that the giving of the “thing” is irrevocable but the operation thereof is revocable, because without the operation thereof, the gift is nothing. It is nonsensical to talk about a healing gift that cannot heal. Therefore, by irrevocable, obviously, they meant that God will not revoke his working of the healing gift. I do not think I am alone to say that if you who have the healing gift, oppose God, defile yourself, and sin without regard, you may not be able to pray for the sick and expect the sick to be healed by God through you. In this scenario, what did it mean? It meant that God has revoked the gift. Look, one is playing with words, if one says that the gift is not revoked; only the operation is revoked.


Best not to use Romans 11:29 on revocability of spiritual gifts
It is best we do not say a spiritual gift given is revocable or irrevocable, because Romans 11:29 was not about revocability. We must understand that, giving by grace (or without regret) and revocability are completely different matters. Let me again, illustrate:

I can decide to support a particular brother in his desire to go full-time in his ministry, whatever that maybe. I can by grace, give that brother, a monthly sum of money of say $300.00. It is a gift by grace. The brother did not need to do anything for me, or prove anything to me. I can, for example just deposit the sum into the brother’s bank account, without any question asked, of the brother. But, say, a year later, if I so decide, I can stop the giving, and no one can fault me for anything whatsoever. What I give by grace, I can stop giving. I am not demanding back what I gave the brother for the past year; if I do that, people can say I should not take back what I have already given out as a gift. Because I did not give an irrevocable undertaking that binds me for life, I can stop giving at any time I want, and without regret.

There are actual situations in the Bible where God had granted favors (favor of God) to people, like the descendants of Esau and Lot, and then later because of the sins and disobedience of these people, God stop granting the favors.

Grace is like that. What is being given out of grace, it can be stopped. Another example is found in the story of Jonah. God made a vine to grow up to shield Jonah from the heat, but God also subsequently caused a worm to kill the vine. When Jonah protested, God said Jonah was not justified to be angry because Jonah made no contribution to the vine coming up, it was God who gave the shelter to Jonah out of His grace, and so, He could refrain from keeping the vine alive. In this particular case, God stopped the flow of the benefit of the shade by killing the vine. God did not undo the past; likewise, God can stop the operation of the healing gift, but He will not “unheal” those who had previously been healed through you.

Therefore, my advice to people is this, if they want to operate in their spiritual gifts consistently, they have to watch their lives. Instead of holding onto Romans 11:29, and telling God that His word said that He will not revoke His spiritual gifts, they should live in the ways of God and refrain from disobeying God.


What about on a corporate basis?
Actually, the context of Romans 11:29 was a corporate context; God was referring to the Jews and the Gentiles, corporately. The actual context of the verse, I believe was on the gift of life, or salvation call, corporately, for the Jews and the Gentiles. But if one wants to widen the application, especially in terms of what can be covered under the word, “gifts” and “call”, I believe it is best to stick to a corporate context.

It would be more likely that, corporately, spiritual gifts would not be revoked. What do I mean by that? It means that in a corporate setting, like in a body of Christ, a church for example, God when He has decided to give the body a healing gift, He might be more reluctant to take it away, than say, when the same is given to an individual. Of course, when the gift is given, it is given to an individual, but it is not the same as giving it to the individual per se. Let me explain: When God gives a healing gift to the church, someone has to receive it on the church’s behalf. Say, God chooses me, Anthony, to be the bearer of the gift; and when I pray for the sick, God will come and work His healing virtue through, and the sick get healed. But when I sin without regard, and blatantly disregard Him, He might decide to revoke that gift I received on behalf of the church. If His original intention was that the gift was meant for the body of Christ, He might choose another bearer in the body to take over. In this way, the gift is not revoked from the body, corporately.

Frankly speaking, this is the correct way of viewing one’s spiritual gift. One is just the chosen bearer of the gift from within the body of Christ. And body of Christ can be referring to the small numbers of believers habitually coming together, your local church, the national church, or the larger worldwide church. God may choose one bearer or many bearers, and can change bearers (Please note that I am not talking of gift of life, here. Gift of life, is best viewed on a personal basis, ultimately).


But there is no need to fret
In the Book of James, in James 1:16-18, we can see how we ought to view gifts.

16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. (James 1:16-18)

It said every good and perfect gift is from God who does not change like shifting shadows. Notice that James referenced the giver, and said that he does not change like shifting shadows. God does not change like shifting shadows, it is not about whether or not the gift changes or will disappear or is gone; the Giver is not fickle-minded.

As if referencing the gifts and call (collectively referencing the grace, mercy, favor {gifts} and salvation call) of Romans 11:29, James said God chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created.

It is interesting that, even though the theme of James 1:2-18 was on trials, James ended the discussion with the verses above.

I believe perhaps, among those who faced trials, whom James was trying to encourage, were people who at some points in time, previously, were evidently used of God in many wonderful ways, perhaps, to heal the sick, perform miracles, etc, but were now faced with trials. I believe he was trying to say that they should not, for a moment, think that what they were capable of accomplishing in the past, with the exercise of their spiritual gifts, were not from God {thus he said all good and perfect gift is from God}, or that God was fickle-minded and had abandoned them {thus he said God does not change like shifting shadows}. James said He chose; God chose to give them life through the Word. Implicit in that I believe, James said that God loved them {despite their facing of trials}, for at the base of it all, love is a choice. When God chose to birth anyone of us {salvation, 2nd birth}, He bound Himself to love us. Love is a choice, and then a commitment, but we must also understand that God's love for men is first of all, love unto righteousness (there are righteousness demands  in His love for you).


Correctly, it is you should NOT think that God does NOT love you anymore when you no longer operate in any of the gifts that you used to operate in, but there is always the need for us to self-examine if there are areas of our life that have gone displeasing to the Lord.  Don't fret, but be self-examining and inquire of the Lord. [Add: 11 Feb 2015 - removed agape, and restated addition made on 2 Aug 2011 on love unto righteousness {'ahab love}]




Anthony Chia, high.expressions – God does not change like shifting shadows (James 1:17b), but spiritual gifts are not necessarily irrevocable.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com.  To go back to blog main page, click here.

The Fall of Man (Part II)

This series has 3 parts, namely:

Part I – The Need for understanding of the topic, background, and the fall
Part II – The Consequences of The Fall
Part III – Controversial Issues on the topic


In this part II of a 3-part article we are covering the consequences of The Fall.

The key text for this portion, apart from those in Genesis 3 which were typically cited for the Fall of Man is this:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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)

Because it was first stated for us in Genesis 2, and not repeated completely for us in Genesis 3, often times, not enough emphasis is put on it as the primary consequence of The Fall. Even though Genesis 3:22-24 captured God’s saying that man could not be allowed to reach for the fruit from the tree of life, and God’s banishing of men from the Garden of Eden, these verses did not quite reflect the penalty of death curse in Genesis 2:16-17; although it was necessary, in fact, quite imperative that men be kept away from the fruit from the tree of life so that God’s word in Genesis 2:16-17 shall stand.


Primary consequences for man
----------------------------------------
Destined to Hell, eternal separation from God. This is a punishment but how do we come to this conclusion? To understand this, we have to look at Genesis 2:16-17:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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)

God’s word must stand. God gave a command/prohibition/law, the penalty of which is a curse or damnation. God said that if man broke that command, he would surely die. Did man break the command? Yes; and so man must die. If man could still live forever, just like that, God’s word was of no effect, empty threat, or worse still, it implied God lied.

But then, even so, did man die? No; not in the natural or physical sense. We know from Scripture that subsequently God put man out of the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve lived to give birth to 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. So, did God lie? No, the death that God was referring to was not the natural or physical death; it was referring to the separation from God, or commonly being referred to as the 2nd death. And this 2nd death is the living forever in Hell, in the lake of burning fire. Man, because of his spirited soul, can never die in the sense that it will become nothingness. I believe a spirited soul lives forever, either in Heaven or in Hell. Having to live in Hell is an eternal separation from God, and is a spiritual punishment, on the spirited soul. If you have read my article on the Tripartite man (or Man is body, soul and spirit), you will understand my reasoning here.

The punishments listed in verses Gen 3:16 -19 were in addition to this death condemnation or curse (of the law). People who preached on the Fall of Man without making reference to this death penalty was really doing injustice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for if there was not, this death curse or condemnation, there was no need for Jesus’ (primary) justification.

Of course God could have let Adam and Eve die the natural or physical death immediately after the disobedience, but He did not. He was acting in grace but not in contradiction to his own law or commandment, for the penalty of that law was not natural/physical death, 1st death but the 2nd death. God’s plan from the very start was to have man populate the Heaven, to live with God in Heaven, and his allowing Adam and Eve to live on, on earth was in keeping to that plan, God was still desirous of man to populate Heaven despite The Fall. I believe since God allowed man to live on, on earth, God decided there must still be some form of punishment (listed under verses Gen 3:16-19) for the bodily/physical man (the spirited soul was already subjected to eternal damnation because of the disobedience, by the eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil).

In line with His word in Genesis 2:16-17, God had to disallow man to reach for the fruit from the tree of life, and banished man from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:22-24). The detailed exposition of this point I will leave it to Part III.


Loss of righteousness. In the Book of Romans, the God’s appointed apostle, Paul said in Rom 3:10, that there is no one righteous, not even one. Indeed, after The Fall, no man was ever righteous without God imputing it on him. This is also a primary consequence of The Fall. This is not the same as the damnation to Hell. The damnation, as a curse, was referring to a future event; meanwhile man still lived a natural life on earth, and he is not righteous, not even one is. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God – this is commonly quoted to encapsulate the effect of The Fall of man. In essence, man has lost the original righteousness that he has when God first created him (Anyone wants to dispute this? Obviously God created man righteous. Why wouldn’t He; man was the pinnacle of His Creation? Furthermore, we read in Genesis, it was as if it were daily affair that God would just come looking for man and to fellowship with man in the Garden of Eden.).

What does this loss of original righteousness mean?

1. Worthless. It means that starting from The Fall, man has turned away, and they have become worthless [Rom 3:12] (worthless, because God always looked at the “end-result” {“” used because really there is no end for God, only eternality (end-result, talking in man’s perspective of time).} Without help from God, fallen man is destined to Hell, eternal separation from God – what use is there of man, to God, when that happens? No use, and therefore, worthless. Even as an object of love, man’s sinfulness is offensive to the holiness of God. Yet, God still cometh for Man in love, and this is pure grace.

2. Deeds also worthless. Because of the fallen nature of man, no deeds of man are ever good, not even one. The deeds of fallen man (unrighteous man; a fallen man is an unrighteous man) can never be good in the eyes of God (although it does not mean that God will not consider them or accept them by grace – by grace, meaning that they are considered or accepted undeservingly).

3. Man started to become wicked. Also, when man lost his righteousness (through The Fall), what it meant was that man had become wicked or wickedness had been found in him. Romans 3:13-17 talked about the inclinations and the motivations of the hearts of wicked men. From those thoughts of the hearts birthed forth the actions – practice of snaring and deceits; slandering, cursing and embittering speech; harm, bloodshed and murder; life ruining and misery inflicting actions; violations of peace; and no fear of God. Of course, the degree of wickedness found in man varied over the history of men. At one point during Noah’s times, it was so bad that God had to bring on The Flood. It suffices here, to say that the seed of wickedness, Iniquity (or Sin), came into Man at The Fall.


Before I go into the punishments listed in verses 16-19 of Genesis 3, which I term as the secondary consequences for man, let me say that the redemption of man from the damnation or curse, and the reestablishment of the righteousness of man, we now know, can only be achieved through the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul went at length at this in Romans 3, particularly verses 9-11. Very briefly, there are 2 dimensions to the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We are firstly, justified by his blood. Justification is about reestablishing the original righteousness of man, lost in The Fall of man, by Jesus’ paying for the death penalty curse with his own life. With that payment, we are no longer condemned or cursed to eternal separation from God, in Hell (which was the original curse/penalty for The Fall). We are secondly, always having the sacrificial atonement, Jesus, to cleanse us of all our sins. How it works, is the same as the primary justification except that we are not referring to the original sin or the original curse or penalty. All sins subsequent to salvation or born again are covered here, and all sins must to be paid for, the associated curse or penalty needs to be paid for. It is Jesus’ sinless blood (similar in a sense, the blood of unblemished sacrificial animals used in the Old Testament) which is paying and cleansing us from our unrighteousness resulted from a sin. Sins incur God’s wrath. It is through Jesus, that our sins are forgiven us, and the wrath of God set aside, and the peace of God with us, be restored.


Secondary consequences for man
------------------------------------------
To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

For the woman, God said her childbearing pain would be increased as one punishment. As a punishment the woman’s desire would be for her husband, and her husband would rule over her. I will not go into my expositions of this verse here, but to leave it to part III of this series.

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Gen 3:17-19)

To the man, he disobeyed a direct command or prohibition by God. For that, God pronounced a curse on the ground with the result that it would not be so easy for the man to satisfy his food need from the ground; he would need to toil painfully for his food all the days of his life. The soil would not be yielding good food for man all the times, at times all man would get, would be thorns and thistles, and man would need to sweat for his food until he dies. For further comments on this punishment, I am leaving it to Part III of this series.


Consequences for Satan
----------------------------------
Before we end this part, on the consequences of the Fall, we need to know there was also punishment for the serpent or Satan.

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:14-15)

The serpent, of course, being the mastermind, deserved to be cursed, from being the most crafty wild animal, it became the most cursed animal. {Added 15/11/2010 - You should remember that this part was talking about secondary consequences, consequences related to the continuing existence of both Man and Satan, as opposed to the primary consequence of living in the burning lake of fire, in Hell, which was of a future time; Satan was already destined to go to Hell, because of his earlier (first) sin {Eze 28}, apart from this; and therefore, there was no relevance of primary consequence for Satan here, in this sin of tempting Man in the Garden of Eden.}

God said He would put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and enmity between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s offspring. The offspring of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, and the serpent would strike the woman’s offspring’s heel. The detailed exposition of this, I leave it to Part III of this series.




Anthony Chia – God punishes because God is Holiness. God punishes because God is Justice. God grants grace and mercy because God is Love. God grants grace and mercy because God is Compassion. But God is Holiness, first.

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.

Judges 9 – Abimelech, a king who was not

The way to read this article is that the orange underlined texts are the verses of the Bible (NIV, unless otherwise stated). The black texts following the Bible verses (and enclosed by square brackets) are my commentaries. At the end of these Bible texts and commentaries, I have inserted a section on "Points to take note/What we have learnt/can learn".
{For full listing of all articles in this series, click here}

Abimelech

1 Abimelech son of Jerub-Baal {Gideon} went to his mother's brothers in Shechem and said to them and to all his mother's clan, 2 "Ask all the citizens of Shechem, 'Which is better for you: to have all seventy of Jerub-Baal's sons rule over you, or just one man?' Remember, I am your flesh and blood." [Towards the end of the episode on Gideon in Judges 8, Abimelech was mentioned as the son of Gideon, from a Shechem concubine. The early inhabitants of Shechem are descendants of Hamor (probably the city name took after Hamor’s son name, Shechem), and Hamor was the descendants of Hivites, and Hivites descended from Ham, one of the 3 sons of Noah (Ham, Shem and Japheth). (Israelites descended from Abraham who descended from Shem, son of Noah). In this sense, Abimelech was a mixed-blood between an Israelite from the tribe of Manasseh (one of the two tribes of the house of Joseph, who was one of the son of Israel {aka Jacob}), circumcised, and a descendant from another line from Noah, uncircumcised. From the manner that it was recorded in Judges 8:29-31, it would appear that the other sons of Gideon were from the Israelites’ blood line; not mixed-bloods. Actually way back in Genesis 34, there was already a feud between Hamor (and his son Shechem) and Abraham (and his sons). Abimelech saw himself as different from the other sons of Gideon, He saw himself more a Shechemite than an Israelite. So after Gideon’s death, he went to Shechem to rally support particularly from his maternal uncles.]
3 When the brothers {of Abimelech’s mother} repeated all this to the citizens of Shechem, they were inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, "He is our brother." 4 They gave him seventy shekels of silver from the temple of Baal-Berith, and Abimelech used it to hire reckless adventurers, who became his followers. 5 He went to his father's home in Ophrah and on one stone murdered his seventy brothers, the sons of Jerub-Baal. But Jotham, the youngest son of Jerub-Baal, escaped by hiding. 6 Then all the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo gathered beside the great tree at the pillar in Shechem to crown Abimelech king. [When Abimelech’s maternal uncles got for him the support of the Shechemites, he (Abimelech) got some reckless followers and went back to Ophrah, his father’s town and sought the lives of all his brothers. All the brothers got killed except the youngest by the name of Jotham. Then Abimelech went back to Shechem to be crowned as King Abimelech by the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo (probably a satellite town of Shechem, chief activity there being worship of gods, complete with citadels (temples)). We see later that Jotham spoke against the coronation by way of a parable. There was no mention of fellow Israelites’ reactions to the coronation, of whether they would recognize Abimelech as King. I suspect they did not recognize Abimelech as King, although we read in verse 22 below that Abimelech governed Israel for 3 years. Bible scholars generally consider the “Kings” period as having started only with the installation of King Saul (this happened much later). This period is still being referred to as the “Judges” period.]
7 When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, "Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. 8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.' [Jotham’s Parable of Reproach on Mount Gerizim. There is very little by way of commentary on this parable. This is what came to my mind as the exposition for this parable: You will remember in Judges 8, we read that the Israelites wanted to make Gideon the King after he had killed the kings of Midian. Trees in the Bible sometimes referred to men. Men are like trees planted of the Lord. The olive tree, I believe, was referring to Gideon. Olive is a symbol of peace. Gideon was a symbol of peace – he brought peace to the people after 7 years of severe oppression under the Midianites. Also how he handled the conflict between the Ephraim and Manasseh (Judges 8:1-3) reflected this.]
9 "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?' [Gideon, we have read in Judges 8 refused. Jotham said the answer for the refusal was that the candidate was of the view that he would lose fruitfulness if he were to be made King. This, you see later, is the same answer for all other potential candidates, until Jotham reached the thornbush. The understanding, I believe, up to that time was that the Lord was the King. In fact the people of God knew very well that their heritage, as was practiced by Moses, demanded that they just have representatives to go before God for major directions - the Lord was the King. Moses, in his days, always went before the Tabernacle (in which God dwelt), which followed the movements of the Israelites; even Moses was not known like a King. Men are like trees planted of the Lord to bear fruits, olive tree to give oil, fig trees to bear fig fruits, vine to bear grapes for wine, etc. – that, I believe, was the understanding. The understanding was that to take up kingship which was not in the vocabulary of God for the people, so to speak, would cause one to lose one’s fruitfulness.]
10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.' [The fig tree here, I believe, was referring to the children, excluding Abimelech, the mix-blood, of Gideon. The fig is a many-in-one fruit. I believe fig tree has the connotation of children.] 11 "But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?' [Those children of Gideon also declined to be king.]
12 "Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.' [Trees referred to men, in general. Vine also referred to men but it has a more specific meaning. I believe vine was used for God’s people, which in the Judges period was referring to the Israelites, and in our modern days is referring to Christians. Joseph was said to a fruitful vine (Gen 49:22), and Jesus talked about Himself as the true vine (John 15:1). Men are likened as trees, and when they have become Christians, they are likened as vines (John 15:5).] 13 "But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?' [The “more eligible” Israelites also declined to be king for the same reason – The Lord was the King, everyone was only to do his part, be fruitful at his station, and not to set himself up as the King or Lord, because God did not indicate the installation of a king was called for.].
14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'[The thornbush here, I believe, was referring to Abimelech. Finally the people asked Abimelech to be king.] 15 "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!' [By this, Jotham was prophesying what would happen if Abimelech became king. Everyone must be subject to him and if they did not, he would destroy them, even the eminent people (cedars of Lebanon).] 16 "Now if you have acted honorably and in good faith when you made Abimelech king, and if you have been fair to Jerub-Baal and his family, and if you have treated him as he deserves- 17 and to think that my father fought for you, risked his life to rescue you from the hand of Midian 18 (but today you have revolted against my father's family, murdered his seventy sons on a single stone, and made Abimelech, the son of his slave girl, king over the citizens of Shechem because he is your brother)- 19 if then you have acted honorably and in good faith toward Jerub-Baal and his family today, may Abimelech be your joy, and may you be his, too! 20 But if you have not, let fire come out from Abimelech and consume you, citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and let fire come out from you, citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and consume Abimelech!" [Jotham continued to prophesise that there would be mutual destructions for the people who installed Abimelech as king and Abimelech himself, at the hands of each other. It was obvious that the people did not act honorably and in good faith, and was not fair to Gideon and his family despite Gideon’s deliverance of people from the hands of cruelty of the Midianites.] 21 Then Jotham fled, escaping to Beer, and he lived there because he was afraid of his brother Abimelech. [Jotham exhibited courage despite being afraid. Remember what I said about the difference between being afraid and courage. One can be afraid and yet be of courage (You may want to re-read my commentary on Judges 7:9-12). I believe that God honored that courage and remembered his favor for Gideon, and extended that favor unto Jotham and brought Jotham’s prophesy to pass, which you would read, in the subsequent verses.]
22 After Abimelech had governed Israel three years, 23 God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who acted treacherously against Abimelech. 24 God did this in order that the crime against Jerub-Baal's seventy sons, the shedding of their blood, might be avenged on their brother Abimelech and on the citizens of Shechem, who had helped him murder his brothers. 25 In opposition to him these citizens of Shechem set men on the hilltops to ambush and rob everyone who passed by, and this was reported to Abimelech. [The Lord was bringing to pass the prophesy of Jotham. God sent an evil spirit. In a number of places in the Bible, we read of God sending evil spirits against people/individuals. Here is one example, and another example was what happened with King Saul – God sent a tormenting spirit against Saul. (The “Kings” period is after the “Judges” period in the Bible). It is my belief that the most fundamental attribute of God is holiness. (Many people put love as number one. In my opinion, that would be inadequate to explain some of the events in the Bible). In short, holiness necessitates punishment, and the sending of the evil spirit was a punishment. I do not see any evil in God meting out punishment. In verse 25, we read that the citizens of Shechem started to disregard Abimelech.] 26 Now Gaal son of Ebed moved with his brothers into Shechem, and its citizens put their confidence in him. 27 After they had gone out into the fields and gathered the grapes and trodden them, they held a festival in the temple of their god. While they were eating and drinking, they cursed Abimelech. 28 Then Gaal son of Ebed said, "Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should be subject to him? Isn't he Jerub-Baal's son, and isn't Zebul his deputy? Serve the men of Hamor, Shechem's father! Why should we serve Abimelech? 29 If only this people were under my command! Then I would get rid of him. I would say to Abimelech, 'Call out your whole army!' " [These verses gave us a clue to the blood line of the Shechem citizens, and so the maternal blood line of Abimelech, like I explained in the beginning of this chapter. There was an individual called Shechem and his father was Hamor. The city was probably named after Shechem. Hamor was an Hivite, and Hivites are descendants of Ham, one of the 3 sons of Noah, the other two being Shem (from whom descendants of Abraham, and therefore Israel{Jacob},came from), and Jepheth. So here, we read that this fellow called Gaal, instigating a revolt by reminding the citizens of Shechem their blood line, and said that Abimelech was in fact not a true Shechemite because his father, Gideon, was an Israelite, a descendant from Abraham, from Shem (son of Noah), and not from Hamor (although Abimelech’s mother was), and not from Ham, son of Noah. Isn’t it ironical that Abimelech before his installation, was arguing that he was different from the other children of Gideon, that he was brother to the Shechemites! Genesis 34 recorded that there was a feud between Abraham and Hamor. Abraham’s sons killed Hamor and Shechem (Hamor’s son) over Shechem’s affair with Dinah, daughter of Abraham. Gaal was capitalizing on the past feud between the descendants of the two bloodlines.] 30 When Zebul the governor of the city heard what Gaal son of Ebed said, he was very angry. 31 Under cover he sent messengers to Abimelech, saying, "Gaal son of Ebed and his brothers have come to Shechem and are stirring up the city against you. 32 Now then, during the night you and your men should come and lie in wait in the fields. 33 In the morning at sunrise, advance against the city. When Gaal and his men come out against you, do whatever your hand finds to do." 34 So Abimelech and all his troops set out by night and took up concealed positions near Shechem in four companies. 35 Now Gaal son of Ebed had gone out and was standing at the entrance to the city gate just as Abimelech and his soldiers came out from their hiding place. 36 When Gaal saw them, he said to Zebul, "Look, people are coming down from the tops of the mountains!" Zebul replied, "You mistake the shadows of the mountains for men." 37 But Gaal spoke up again: "Look, people are coming down from the center of the land, and a company is coming from the direction of the soothsayers' tree." 38 Then Zebul said to him, "Where is your big talk now, you who said, 'Who is Abimelech that we should be subject to him?' Aren't these the men you ridiculed? Go out and fight them!" 39 So Gaal led out the citizens of Shechem and fought Abimelech. 40 Abimelech chased him, and many fell wounded in the flight—all the way to the entrance to the gate. 41 Abimelech stayed in Arumah, and Zebul drove Gaal and his brothers out of Shechem. [The above recorded the clash between citizens of Shechem led by Gaal, and Abimelech, led by Zebul. Zebul won and drove Gaal out of Shechem. The part about Abimelech was asked to come to Shechem in the night to position men was because I believe Abimelech was perhaps residenced at his father’s hometown, and ruled from there (verse 22).] 42 The next day the people of Shechem went out to the fields, and this was reported to Abimelech. 43 So he took his men, divided them into three companies and set an ambush in the fields. When he saw the people coming out of the city, he rose to attack them. 44 Abimelech and the companies with him rushed forward to a position at the entrance to the city gate. Then two companies rushed upon those in the fields and struck them down. 45 All that day Abimelech pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it. [We read in verse 22, Abimelech governed Israel for three years, whether or not he was recognized as King over the Israelites was another matter. So, Abimelech’s seat of power was not just Shechem, otherwise he would be destroying himself. Here we read he operated from outside the city of Shechem, captured it and destroyed the city.] 46 On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith. 47 When Abimelech heard that they had assembled there, 48 he and all his men went up Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and cut off some branches, which he lifted to his shoulders. He ordered the men with him, "Quick! Do what you have seen me do!" 49 So all the men cut branches and followed Abimelech. They piled them against the stronghold and set it on fire over the people inside. So all the people in the tower of Shechem, about a thousand men and women, also died. [In those days, it was not uncommon for cities to build towers, in and outside the cities. Some were more elaborate, equipped with temple (citadel), the belief being that gods would protect their cities; some were less. What was said of, here, was probably one such towers, fully equipped with a temple stronghold, and this tower was probably outside the city, since the city of Shechem was already destroyed (verse 45). Basically, Abimelech led the troops to set fire and burnt down the whole tower, killing all the people inside, about 1,000 people. Abimelech was probably very pleased with what he had done, especially the last bit of being the first to light the fire to burn the tower (he copied his father’s act; Gideon was first to blow the trumpet and smashed the jar to let out the fire from the torch within, in the major battle against the Midianites). The first part of the prophesy of Jotham came to pass – the destruction of citizens of Shechem by the hands of Abimelech.] 50 Next Abimelech went to Thebez and besieged it and captured it. 51 Inside the city, however, was a strong tower, to which all the men and women—all the people of the city—fled. They locked themselves in and climbed up on the tower roof. 52 Abimelech went to the tower and stormed it. But as he approached the entrance to the tower to set it on fire, 53 a woman dropped an upper millstone on his head and cracked his skull. 54 Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say, 'A woman killed him.' " So his servant ran him through, and he died. 55 When the Israelites saw that Abimelech was dead, they went home. [After his success at burning the tower of Shechem, Abimelech went on to Thebez, a nearby city, about 15km away. Some commentators said that Thebez was attacked because they refused to accept Abimelech when he was installed as king, others said that the people there conspired with the Shechemites to revolt against him. I believe it could be that some of the Shechemites fled to the nearby city, and Abimelech just wanted to completely destroy the rebels (and those who helped the rebels) – the prophesy of Jotham said that citizens of Shemchem and Beth Millo (not just Beth Millo) would “do him in”. When the remaining people in the town fled into the town’s tower, Abimelech thought he could just do the same thing he did for the tower of Shechem, torch it. Little did he know that a woman would drop a millstone on his head and cracked his skull.] 56 Thus God repaid the wickedness that Abimelech had done to his father by murdering his seventy brothers. 57 God also made the men of Shechem pay for all their wickedness. The curse of Jotham son of Jerub-Baal came on them. [The mutual destructions of the parties, citizens of Shechem and Abimelech had come to pass, just as prophesised by Jotham.]


What have we learnt in this episode of Abimelech?
1. Don’t plot evil; don’t do evil; don’t join evil.

2. Don’t “touch” the favored ones of God, not even their families.

3. God is holy, He will punish where punishment is due.

4. From that concerning Jotham, we learnt these:

a. Courage is important, and needed, to serve God, and God honors that

b. We are olive tree (the body of believers liken as a huge olive tree; we are a part thereof).

i. Olive represented peace, we are to seek and guard peace, be peace-makers, bring peace.

ii. Olive tree produces olive fruits from which we get oil. Oil represented fruitfulness.

iii. So, as olive trees, we are to produce olive oil, be peaceful, peace for self and others, and be fruitful. Accordingly if we violate peace and go about things that are inconsistent with God’s word or wishes (that definitely isn’t fruitfulness), we are either a "bad” olive tree or we are no longer one because the test of an olive tree is that it produces olive oil. In the story above, becoming the King was not consistent with God’s word/wishes, so the wise candidates said they would not give up their oil, in other words, fruitfulness.

c. We are vine (and we are to abide in the true vine, Jesus Christ).

i. As in the metaphor of the olive tree, peace and fruitfulness are the same things stressed by Jesus in his teaching. Jesus himself, being the Prince of Peace. If we want peace, we must abide in true vine, Jesus. If we abide in Him, we will have peace, and just as He is Peace, we will be peace.

ii. The fruit of the vine is grapes, from which we get wine. Similarly put, wine represented fruitfulness, like the oil, for the olive tree. Again, Jesus in his teachings, stressed fruitfulness. What will happen to a vine that bears no fruit? Jesus basically said it was useless and its fate would be into the fire to be burnt (The vine and the branches {John 15:1-8}). It is important what we go about doing in this life are not inconsistent with God’s word or wishes. Despite the various interpretations of the Parable of the withering of the fig tree (Matt 21:18-19), I believe one of the point Jesus was trying to put across was that fruitfulness is what God wants, not what we think God should want or what we want.

iii. Abide in Jesus, and we can be both peaceful, peace for self and peace for others, and be fruitful. Some of us have a measure of the first part, peace but lack the second. I believe it is because we have not embraced the Holy Spirit fully. Do you know that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, and also the Spirit of Christ Jesus? Yes, we have the written word of God, the Bible, but it is the Holy Spirit who makes the word alive to us, and in real time, in actual setting, gives us the prompting for us to do what God wants done in real time and actual situation. Scripture said that it is the Holy Spirit who knows the mind of God. So if we want to know what God’s wills are, from, or in addition to the written word, we have to embrace the Holy Spirit. Do you know that oil is used to symbolize the Holy Spirit? In other words, like what the olive oil represented (fruitfulness), the Holy Spirit is critical to fruitfulness; which is not surprising since we have just said the Holy Spirit is the one who knows the mind of God, and fruitfulness gets to do with what God wants, not what we think God should want or what we want.




Anthony Chia – This is what is said in Proverbs 3:33 – The LORD's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous.

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com
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.