Agape’s meanings need to be expanded (PART I)

In this Part I, we will look at the credibility of saying the agape love is indeed charitable, sacrificial, selfless and unconditional.  In Part II (in a separate article), we will look at the ingredient that needed to be included in the expanded meaning of agape.

PART I

Agápe:  In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros" {sensual love}. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.  (quoted from Wikipedia, sometime back. Now this definition is NOT there anymore; it is nevertheless, the traditional general definition).

It is in its biblical context use that it had come to “acquire” the sacrificial connotation so strongly. 

How “unconditional” got into agape?

And because of usage, in the modern day Greek it has also taken on the connotation of an unconditional love. 

Influential Christian theologians contributed to the shaping of the meanings associated with “agape”; in other words, agape was NOT a very adequate Greek word, albeit the best love word in place of its Hebrew equivalent, and it acquired its richness, afterwards, through imputation from overall counsel of the Word, which in my view, was somewhat lobe-sided for lack of imputing the richness of the Hebrew equivalent word of the Old Testament. 

One such influential theologian was CS Lewis who wrote on the “Four Loves”, published in 1960.  I have NOT read the book, although I have read reviews of that book, and know that the book resembled the author’s meditation of the 5 “classes” (4, I added one here – thelo) of love as categorised in the ancient Greek words of love, namely, storge - familial or affectionate love; philia (or phileo) - friendship; eros - romantic love; thelo – be fond of/take pleasure in …(verb); and lastly, agape – God kinda of love.

Now most reviews of the book equated agape to unconditional love, the others, to spiritual love or God’s love.  Why do they equated agape love to unconditional love is something deserving a thought, ourselves.

Perhaps, it was because CS Lewis, who also in that book distinguished between Need-love and Gift-love, with the obvious pointing of agape love to the Gift-love.  Being a gift, agape is therefore, logically equated as unconditional.  Although as a notion, the implication of a gift, is understood as unconditional, by men generally, regardless faith (i.e. it is NOT a Christian notion), but it was through CS Lewis’ acquired Christian faith lenses (he was previously an atheist) that he meditated on this subject of love, thereby implicitly referencing the salvation gift of life as the highest expression of a Gift-love, God’s kinda of love.  It was also possible that, through collective proclaiming by early influential theologians that agape love had acquired the unconditional love “fame”. 

What I am saying is that the original meanings of the ancient Greek word of love, “agape”, as typified by the Wikipedia quote (give above) or its traditional general definition, did NOT necessarily included such extensive meanings and expressions as expounded by such early theologians, including CS Lewis.

How is love defined in Bible?

The English Bible is a translation; the original Biblical texts were mainly in 2 languages:  The Old Testament (OT) in Hebrew {It is believed that a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in Aramaic}, and the New Testament (NT) in Greek (ancient Greek).  On top of that during Jesus’ time, Aramaic was the common language, and it is believed that Jesus spoke Aramaic in His day to day conversations; a few Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the NT {NT was written in ancient Greek then, because Greek was the language of scholarship}. So, when we read the English Bible, it is a translation, from both Hebrew and Greek.

Because languages have “shades” of meanings associated with a word or group of words or similar words, there has always been the issue of correctness of translations, to put it very simply.  Then, there is also the issue of the NT was in Greek, NOT in the same Hebrew language of the OT which came into being, much earlier in history, and is foundational, because the God of the NT is the very same God of the OT; what were written of God and God’s dealings with Man, of course, were true and remained true.

Because of the difference in language, expressions, such as “love” were expressed, in OT, in Hebrew words, different from those in NT, in Greek.  Had one language been used throughout it would have been easier, since a notion or expression would have been denoted by the same word of one language.  It is NOT unusual when interpreting NT scriptures to consider if an expression was first mentioned in the OT – rule of first-mention is a “rule” of interpretation of scriptures.

For the English language word, “love”, there are 3 main Greek words (in NT) possible {eros and storge were NOT found directly in NT Scripture), and 2 main Hebrew words (in OT).  The 3 Greek “love” words are: agape (G26), phileo or philia (G5368), and thelo (G2309); and the 2 Hebrew words are: `ahab (H157) and dowd (H1730). 

I will be giving the various meanings assigned to the words given here, representing “love”; from there, we can see the “more than a little bit of headache” in deciding which love word was being referred to, in the English Bible.

First, we have the Greek words of love, found in the NT (short definitions taken from Strong’s Lexicon):

Agape -

1) affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love (also to love dearly – agapaō (G25));
2) love feasts;

Phileo -

1) to love: to approve of, to like, sanction, to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend
2) to show signs of love: to kiss
3) to be fond of doing: be wont, use to do

Thelo - to will, have in mind, intend:

to be resolved or determined, to purpose; to desire, to wish; to love; to like to do a thing, be fond of doing; to take delight in, have pleasure

One may think, for the English NT text, we could look up the equivalent Greek Bible verse, and then we will know.  That is right, but, just as the English word, “love”, is inadequate to capture which (or what) love was being referred to, by the Greek authors, there is the possibility of a similar problem of the Greek language was NOT able to frame which love was being referred to, as was first understood by the Jews, in God’s historical dealings with them in the OT period. 

Of course, it is possible something really new, was revealed by God in NT, where the first-mention “rule” fails, but sometimes, it is difficult to tell; it could be an existing “theme” (existing in OT) being rehashed; like in the case of “love”, would you think that the notions/ideas/concepts of love would have been fully expressed and made known to Man, even before NT; or do you think that some concept of love was only made known in NT time? 

The races and their cultures of particular times, including their linguistic depictions of ideas, notions or concepts could make the one and same thing, being expressed in approximating words only, in the respective languages; so, that the OT was in Hebrew, and the NT, in Greek, does possess interpretive issue.

You have already seen the meanings of the 3 Greek words for “love”; here are the meanings of the OT “love”, `ahab and dowd:

`ahab (H157) – either love or like, and for love, it is broken down to:

human love for another, includes family, and sexual;
human appetite for objects such as food, drink, sleep, wisdom;
human love for or to God;
act of being a friend: lover (participle), friend (participle);
God's love toward man: to individual men, to people Israel, to righteousness;
lovely (participle), loveable (participle);
friends, lovers (fig. of adulterers).

Dowd (H1730) – beloved, love, uncle:

loved one, beloved, uncle, love (pl. abstract)

Some people include checed (H2617) as a love word in Hebrew, because some translations have rendered it as love.  It has the main meaning as loving-kindness from one of a higher position – God, or from man to man, and so, typically it is used as God’s “love” for men, but NOT the other way round of men, for God.  To me, grace is perhaps the appropriate word to use.

See, how do we match them up, the 3 Greek words and 2 - 3 Hebrew words?  Not so easy isn’t it! 

Be careful if your revelation goes against established interpretations

What am I trying to do here?  To frighten people so that they should NOT try to interpret scriptures, and just rely on the pastors?  No, but I do want to caution people against just interpreting scriptures, without weighing seriously established interpretations. 

Much research, study, meditation, and waiting on the Lord would have been exacted on what came out as established interpretations.  I am NOT saying there cannot be fresh revelation, but we do have to check and recheck what we think is fresh revelation; for one thing, truths of God do NOT contradict themselves; we do need to consider other scriptures, and the overall counsel of the Word. 

Because it is possible that we “blunder” on giving new interpretations, it is also possible that some other people, including fame preachers and pastors, giving out erroneous new interpretations.  The Word of God said, to check other people’s teachings:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11).

Back to agape

Coming back, in many places in the NT, where “love” appeared, the underlying Greek equivalent used was the Greek word, “agape” (G26) or its connected words like “agapaō” (G25).  From there, many people started to expound on the love, (agape love) in the verses.  Currently, inevitably, agape love is labeled as the charitable, sacrificial, selfless and unconditional love.  If we just look at the short-form Lexicon meanings of agape, as given above, you see the shades of such attributes of the agape love in the list; but definitely such strong connotations as sacrificial, selfless and unconditional are NOT that explicit in the list of meanings. 

Therefore, it is necessary to know the attributes of the love which the Greek called agape were noted from gleaning from the overall counsel of the Word, including through various accounts recorded for us, in Scripture.  I believed that was what the early theologians, including CS Lewis, did; gleaned from Scriptures, and “formulated” the meanings of agape love.  Frankly speaking, in my early days as a Christian, I understood agape love as unconditional love from the mouth of my pastor who probably learnt them from the theologians.  In this article, I would like to be a little more critical, and go back to the source (Word) to “test” like what the Bereans we noted, did, and was praised by the Apostle Paul.

We shall look at some of the Scriptural accounts so that we are completely satisfied that indeed, when that love is mentioned, it was truly comprising such and such attributes like charitable, sacrificial, selfless and to a good extent unconditional.  Then I shall reveal what I believe is a serious ingredient missing in the list of attributes of that agape love.

The charitable, sacrificial, selfless and (to a good extent) unconditional nature of agape love was gleaned from such as these:

1.   “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).  

The Greek word used for “loved” was “agapaō” (G25).  Through Adam, all men have sinned, and would surely die, meaning one would go  through physical death, and ultimately, be thrown into the burning fire of Hell, away from God where eternal life is to be lived, according to the penalty as specified in Gen 2:16-17. 

It was Man who disobeyed God in the first place, and God has provided a plan called the salvation plan, entirely without merit from Man, in which, in His time, He had given His one and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be born as a man and to die for us, so that He, his Son, might bore the penalty of our sin, so that with that substitution, we do NOT need to perish (go to Hell), but have eternal life with Him, the Father God, in Heaven.  All of this, the giving of His Son, pointed to the attributes of that agape love, charitable, sacrificial, and selfless.

The Apostle John repeated, in more words, the same, in 1 John 4:9-10 – “⁹ This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. ¹⁰ This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”  The Greek word for love used here was again agape love. 

2.   For Jesus so loved the world that He gave up His place in Heaven, came to be born as a man, and in the prime of His earthly life gave up His life willingly do the Father God’s will.

⁶ {Jesus} Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! (Phil 2:6-8). “I have testimony weightier than that of John {the Baptist}. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. (John 5:36). They did not understand that he {Jesus} was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:27-28). 

Therefore, Jesus, NOT just the Father God, was loving Man charitably, sacrificially, even selflessly (as least as a Man, that He would die for another, was that NOT selfless?).  If NOT in all regards, at least in this, He died unconditionally, that He died for any sinner, NOT some sinners, NOT particular sinners, but any sinner, who would appropriate His propitiation for sins.

3.   For the Holy Spirit so loved the world that He was willing to be in us (believers), despite He being holy and we still having the sinful nature in us, and guide us into all truths ever so gently.

My understanding of the teaching of the Apostle Paul is that a believer is still with a sinful nature (Gal 5:13, 16-17, Rom 8:12-13), despite he is a new creation.  If you believe that the moment you believe in Jesus, you are perfectly righteous and holy thereafter, which is in my view, wrong teaching from the “overly grace” preachers, you probably cannot appreciate the charity, the sacrifice, and the selflessness of the Holy Spirit to be willing to be dwelling inside of us, without guarantee on our part that we shall maintain holiness and righteousness at all times, for His (Holy Spirit) sake; neither do we guarantee that we will yield to His (Holy Spirit) desires instead of those of the sinful nature, although we are exhorted to do so (Gal 5:16-17, Rom 8:12-13).

Do NOT get me wrong, I am NOT trying to tear down the contribution of early theologians, such as CS Lewis, in this area of defining the agape love; on the contrary, which we shall see later, I want to add to it.    Indeed, even though I have NOT read the book referred to, in my study of the reviews made of the book, this quote from CS Lewis is so spot-on concerning the attributes of agape which can be gleaned from Scripture - the charity, sacrifice, and selflessness demanded from God kinda of love:

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. but in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."

CS Lewis painted that love from the human perspective. If we put ourselves in God’s shoe, taking a theocentric perspective, the Father God gave His one and begotten Son, Jesus, to come to be born as a man and to die as a man with the terrible death of being crucified, was He NOT putting Himself in a vulnerable spot, that although He desired all men be saved through that sacrifice He made (1 Tim 2:4), NOT all men are willing to accept that love sacrifice He made?;  Jesus, similarly, gave up His glory in Heaven, and came to down to earth to be born as a man, and to go through all the sufferings as a man, that he might become the merciful and faithful High Priest in service to God (Heb 2:17), and to die the cruel death, was He NOT taking the risk of “His heart be wrung and possibly be broken” by some who refused Him as Savior and Lord?; the Holy Spirit, in continuing the salvation plan for each of us, through His willingness to make His dwelling inside of us, despite His holiness, was He not risking the “tragedy of being repeatedly grieved by our sinful thoughts and actions”?  Indeed, God’s love was and is charitable, sacrificial, and selfless.

God is agape, and so the love from Him is agape

In 1 John 4:8, we read “God is love”, and the Greek word used there, was again, “agape”.  God is love; God is agape; and the love from Him is agape love.

But is the overall counsel of the Word merely telling us that God is agape, and His love for us is agape, the way the olden Greeks understood agape; or is there more?!

Be agape as He is agape

Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27).  Man, before the Fall in the Garden of Eden, was capable of eternal life, capable of holiness, righteousness, and agape.  The Fall had corrupted those capacities, but the regenerate man (a believer), is once again capable of them.  As a believer, we know we are once again capable of eternal life, because Jesus has propitiated for us the penalty of death from the Original Sin.

Just as there are exhortations in Scripture for us, believers, to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet 1:16 KJV), to be righteous – to resist sins, even the point of shedding blood (Heb 12:4), there are exhortations for us to agape.  I will give you some of the verses in a moment, but what it means is that agape love is NOT just for God to love us with.

Agape is also for us to love God with, and for us to love our neighbors with.  We are to agape God, in return; and we are to agape one another.  In other words, we are NOT to just phileo one another, that was just the olden Greek’s understanding; God asks for agape love, in addition to brotherly love.  Our brotherly love has to be pursued to the level of agape love if we excel in love.  Here are the verses supporting my saying that we are to agape God, and agape one another:

The Apostle John used the same Greek word, “agape”, when referring to our love for God and our love for our neighbors, meaning we are to love God with the same kind of love that God loves us, and we are to love our neighbors with that same kind of love (1 John 4:19-20):

¹⁹ We love because he first loved us. ²⁰ If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. ²¹ And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Jesus’ speaking of the commandments to love was written in Greek by the Apostle Matthew using the same word, “agape”.  Matt 22:37-39 –

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matt 22:37-39).

The love the Apostle Paul referred to in 1 Cor 13 which ended with this: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13), the Greek love word used was also “agape”.

It is very clear, from above, that if we are to excel in love, we are to agape God, and we are to agape (not just phileo) our neighbors.

In summary, firstly, I have NOT yet revealed the ingredient which should be added to the agape love; you will know what it is, in PART II of this 2-part series; secondly, we should have understood that the charitable, sacrificial, selfless and even unconditional attributes were more imputed into the Greek love word, “agape”, from gleaning from the Bible, than it was originally defined by the Greek in their use of the word; thirdly, the revealing of God kinda of love as agape, was NOT just that we might know of God’s love as being agape, but it was to exhort us to also agape God, and to agape our neighbors.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions – I am NOT God, but I am created in the image of God, and now that I am regenerated (have become a believer), the image of God is being restored, and I am once again enabled for eternal life, enabled for holiness and righteousness, and enabled for God kinda of love. As an image is close to the real thing, so must I excel in agape love, just as God is agape, and God agapes.  Lord, may you help me to grow in the image of you.  Amen.

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.

Are you seizing every opportunity?

Recently, I heard a preacher gave what "P.O.O.R" stands for.  Well, what was given was this: Passing Over Opportunities Repeatedly.

What comes to your mind; having just read the above?  Are you thinking something like: "Yah-lo, those poor fellows, they did not seize opportunities that cross their paths; they passed over them repeatedly; that is why they are poor-lo!". Maybe, you even have added, "They only have themselves to blame-lo; thank God, I am smart enough to have seized some of the opportunities, and so, I deserve to have these wealth that I have - condo, car, cash and credit cards!"

Whether the acronym was coined for this purpose or not - to explain why some people are poor, I don't know; rather, since it was spoken by a preacher, I would like to see if there is any relevance to us, as believers.  Obviously, it is not to invoke the above thinking; if we did get that thought, maybe, we are somewhat proud, somewhat mean, and somewhat taking for granted, God's blessing.

Seriously, does the Word talk about seizing opportunities?  If it does, what kind of opportunities is it referring to?  Can we not do so, seize the opportunities afforded us?

Here are 2 verses having this "make the most of every opportunity" (NIV):

Col 4:5 - Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.
Eph 5:16 - making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

What do you think; are they referring to opportunities to get ahead in life, to get rich, or be financially well-off?

Before I go any further, let me say that I am NOT against people being rich; and if you are one, thank God always, and be mindful that the Lord did NOT say "it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle" for no reason.  Having said that, in many ways, being well-off, can be a good thing; it is only what we do with what we are blessed with, that make the difference; after all, we are stewards for God for what we have.

In fact, the subject of us being stewards, is so relevant to the subject of seizing or making the most of every opportunity.

Let us return to the 2 verses I quoted above, and see what we can learn.

Directly, the Col 4:5 text has nothing to do with opportunity to make money!  It is NOT about opportunity to be well-off financially; although I cannot say that it can never happen, that when we proceeded according to the text, we could be blessed.  It is best we looked at both verses 5 & 6, instead of just verse 5:

Col 4:5-6 - 5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Verse 5, firstly, said that we have to be wise in how we interact with non-believers, and that includes making the most of every opportunity; and so, it did specify the context - our interactions with non-believers (outsiders).  But what is the every opportunity for? To seize every opportunity for what? Verse 5 does not say; but verse 6 does leave us some clues; in the seizing of the opportunity, we are to have our conversation to be full of grace and seasoned with salt.  We are to be wise, that we may know how to answer everyone.  But answer everyone concerning what?

The answer to both questions is this: How do we answer "we are different from the rest of the worldly people". It is because of our faith, because we are subscribing to the ways of the Lord.  To be wise, first, we are to live as children of light (for the fruit of light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth - Eph 5:8-9). The life as children of light or the life as one of the Kingdom of God, is different from that of one still of the world (of darkness; not yet of light). As one of light, our conversation should be full of grace, and seasoned with salt.

What does it mean to have our conversation seasoned with salt? It means our words should preserve, instead of degrade or corrupt, and our words should edify and vivify the bland soul.  So, the exhortation here is that we live out our Kingdom life, and make the most of every opportunity to share the reason for our different life, different from the non-believers.  And you and I know, the reason is Christ Jesus, the Gospel, and so, we are to make the most of every opportunity afforded us (because of how we have lived according to the prescription of the Lord), to share about the Lord and the Gospel.  The text has concentrated on our conversation, and it is NOT without reason; for the most common interaction we have with people is conversation.

While the text from Col 4 centered on the our interaction with the non-believers, and  concentrated on our conversation, the second text, which is from the epistle to the Ephesians, is more all encompassing.  You need to look at, not just verse 16 of Ephesians 5, but the text covered under Eph 5:8-20.

Eph 5:8-20 - 8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. 14 This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” 15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This text talked about how we are to live - Verse 15 said, "Be very careful, then, how you live - not as unwise but as wise". As quoted earlier, verses 8-9, talked how we must no longer live like before, when we were still of the world (in darkness), and we are to live as children of light, a life consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth.  As I have said, it is more encompassing; it calls even, for us to find out, and so, live accordingly, what pleases the Lord - v10.  Being wise includes understanding what the Lord's will is, and so, act according to it - v17.  It even calls for us to expose deeds of darkness (v11); in other words, to uphold His justice, too.  It also calls for us to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and so, to be led by the Spirit - v18.

Now, in this text, we can see it written there, that it spoke about interaction between believers; v19 talked about speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. This is definitely referring to interaction between one believer and other believers, and NOT non-believers.

Does it not include the scope of the Col 4 text we looked at, first; interaction with non-believers and the sharing of the Gospel?  Not explicit, but implicitly, it is there, and the pointer is in v17 - NOT to be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.  The Lord's will included (1) we are no longer to live as before, in darkness (before salvation), but as a believer, to live as children of light; (2) we are to be light and salt to the world (Matt 5:13-16); and that God's desire is for all men be saved (1 Tim 2:4); (3) we are to love one another, brothers and sisters in Christ, and that would include encouraging and building up one another.

From the will of God, we can see the Eph 5 text implicitly includes, we, to make most of every opportunity to share the Gospel with the non-believers, afforded from the latter being influenced through our way of life - life as children of light.

Are you P.O.O.R. - passing over opportunities repeatedly? You should NOT, you-know!  You should be S.E.O.!   No, not asking you to be "Search Engine Optimizing", but be "Seizing Every Opportunity", to live out the life of children of light and to share with non-believers, the reason for it.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions - I may not be rich, financially, but I thank God for everything I have, and I sing and make music from my heart to the Lord (Eph 5:19-20).  I am NOT to be passing over opportunities repeatedly (P.O.O.R), but to be seizing every opportunity (S.E.O.), to live the life of children of light, and share the reason for it.

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.

Turning away from wickedness, a must

Recently this text again caught my attention, and when I decided to add it to my "Words for all seasons" on this blog-site, I was surprised that I had NOT done any updating on these words since August 2012; and guess what, the last word on it, was the same 2 Tim 2:19!

 

2 Timothy 2:19 - Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

I have preferred the KJ version (which I will explain in a while) - Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The foundation of God

Verse 19 started with “nevertheless”, the foundation of God standeth sure, … What this means is that, despite what was said preceding to this verse, the foundation of God stands firm.  What was said before this? 

Verses 16-18 revealed to us, what was said was “propagation of godless chatter (NIV) or profane and vain babblings (KJV)”. Now, these are NOT idle/empty talks per se, but profanity against God and His teachings, and these are untruths as opposed to truths of God.  Despite the propagation of these, the foundation of God stands firm.  One untruth or profanity named there (in v18) was that the teaching that our resurrections had taken place!

We are destroyed when our faith is destroyed

About this “already resurrected” teaching (of Hymenaeus and Philetus), the Apostle Paul said, “destroys” faith (v18). 

2 Tim 2:17-18 –

17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Untruths about the core tenants of the faith or core theology such as the death and resurrection of our Lord, His works of redemption, and our hope of salvation and eventual glorification, they destroy faith.


John 10:10a said that Satan came to steal, kill and destroy; John 10:10b – Jesus came that we might have life and life more abundantly.  You will have noticed that “destroy” was put after “killing” (in John 10:10).  In other words, to have us killed (die, physically), is NOT the worst Satan can do to us, destruction is the worst; and destruction here refers to the 2^nd death which means, being thrown eventually in the burning lake of fire of Hell to be tormented there, for eternity.  When a believer’s faith is destroyed, he no longer is on track for eternal life in Heaven, but is once again bound for Hell.  Yes, the passage was referring to believers; for only the believers have a faith to be destroyed (an unbeliever has no faith)!

Does one immediately have his faith destroyed?

The Apostle Paul gave us, here, one scenario of how it could happen.

Verse 16 NIV – Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

Verse 16 KJV - But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

The KJ version gives us a better representation.  For the NIV, one still needs to define what is “indulge in it”, and some people use this as the “escape clause”, by such thinking as, “I was NOT teaching it-what or propagating it-what; I only believe it”. 

Well, you are what you believe!  In other words, you live out your belief; and when you do that you are teaching it or propagating it by your own living example!  The KJV gives us the understanding that profane and vain babblings (which I already defined above), they (the profane and vain babblings) lead to greater ungodliness. In other words, the more and the longer you take it in, ungodliness in you can grow.  When ungodliness grows and festers, your correct belief system, faith, will suffer; over time, your faith gets destroyed.  This is why we are to reject heretic and apostate teachings; and this was why Apostle Paul warned Timothy, and instructed the latter how to handle such false teachings and teachers.

Still, stick to the truths

So, in verse 19, the Apostle Paul was assuring believers that despite and regardless, the spread of such false teachings, God’s foundation remains firm.

God’s foundation is first of all, truths.  Truths do NOT change; this contributes to God’s foundation remaining firm.  Truth is a big word, it covers a lot of ground, so to speak; did Scripture leave some clue as to what constituted the foundation of God’s rule?

What constitutes the foundation of God’s throne?

Ps 89:14a and Ps 97:2 both gave us the foundation of God’s throne as His righteousness and justice:

Ps 89:14a - Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;

PS 97:2 - Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.

The Apostle Paul did NOT quote Ps 89:14a or Ps 97:2, but he was NOT far from it.  Instead of quoting the twin pillars as in Ps 89:14 and Ps 97:2, Paul said there were these 2 inscriptions (on the pillars): “The Lord knoweth them that are his” and “And, Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”.  They are referencing the same things as in the 2 psalm verses.

The righteousness pillar

The 1st pillar of the foundation in the psalm verses, is righteousness.  Instead of saying “righteousness” was inscribed as the foundation, Paul said everyone who nameth the name of Christ must depart from iniquity.  Meaning, everyone who confesses or professes the name of the Lord, must turn away from wickedness, which is the very opposite of righteousness. 

I have said at the start, that I have preferred the KJ version of v19, over the NIV, because the NIV used only the word, “confess”, in place of “nameth”.  It should be confess or profess.  Again, some people try to “escape” through this NIV “escape clause” - confess.  Their argument is this: “See, see, it said there, “confess”, meaning, it was only at the moment of conversion or born-again, that the person must turn away from wickedness, and NOT afterwards, for “confess” was generally used in 1^st time profession of something.” (proper usage of confess and profess is such: 1^st time – we say, “we confess”, subsequently, “we profess”). (Of course, more heretic ones even claim no confession or repentance is even needed at conversion!)

Whereas, the KJV’s use of “nameth” carried with it the meaning of “everyone who rely on the name of Lord, he must depart from wickedness (be embracing righteousness)”.

So, now banish from your thought, the notion and heretic teaching that a believer needs only to turn away from wickedness at his born-again, and have no need of doing so, perseveringly, subsequently.  As a foundation of God’s throne and rule, righteousness is expected to be embraced by us all, on-goingly.

The justice pillar

Paul’s equivalent was “The Lord knoweth them that (who) are his”.  Why did Paul NOT just say, “Justice was inscribed”?  Indeed, Paul was meaning to say justice!  We have expounded already (see above) about what was said, preceding the 2 Tim 2:19 verse – that there were these false preachers/teachers claiming their teachings or theology or doctrines were correct and propagating them, and had them spread (like gangrene!).  Typically, in such, even as it is today, both sides, the true gospel believers/preachers and the heretic believers/preachers, each would claim they are right; in other words, each said that justice would prevail for them.  In fact, the tendency to quarrel would be so strong, that Paul warned against quarrelling (v14).  Paul, we believe, drew the “The Lord knoweth them that (who) are his”, from the failed revolt of Korah in Numbers 16.

In that Num 16 account, Moses’ handling showed us that we have to abide by God’s justice. 

What is justice?  Simply it is what God considers as just is justice!  As a side, there is no such thing as equality for all; there is only justice with God.  You are born into a rich family; I, a poor family, there is no equality (Please do NOT wrongly tell people there is equality with God; the Bible does NOT record such); yet there is justice with God.  For example, God might have endowed me with intelligence above the one born with a silver spoon, or that I have been endowed with a talent that I can make a living with, or that God would protect and provide for me, as I follow Him.  The point is that God knows about everyone who approaches Him. 

God is the knower of hearts of men (Acts 1:24, KJV).  And those of us who are believers or His children, God knows us by the interaction of the Holy Spirit with our spirit.  So, at any point in time, God knows who is for Him and who is NOT!  Whatever Holy Spirit considers just for you, for the time and season, that is justice of God for you. For example, Scripture recorded for us, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, He gives to each as He determines (1 Cor 12:11; also 1 Cor 12:4-6); in this too, God is just.

In that failed revolt of Korah and his fellow Levites against the High Priest, Aaron, Moses simply relied on God was just, for He knew who He had given what or He had called to what (similar to 1 Cor 12:4-6).  Korah and his fellow Levites were separated by God to do the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to people, and here they wanted to challenge the position of Aaron, the High Priest.  We read, in Num 16:5 Moses said this: “In the morning the Lord will show who belongs to him…”  The account ended with the Korah’s camp gotten swallowed up by the ground opening up!  Justice was served.  Aaron was vindicated.

Obviously, “who belongs to him (God)” means more than like in “this wallet belongs to me”! You should know that both Korah and Aaron belonged to God.  Firstly, they were both God’s children or people.  Secondly, both held position of office, but different offices, one was a Levite head (Korah), another, the High Priest, NOT just a Levite.  It is, when you belong (to God), you don’t just belong (as in the wallet belongs to me; that is given), you should also be at the station God deems just. 

Do you know that, in salvation, we are all soldiers of God?  Yes, we belong to God, but if we are NOT at our station God deems just, we could have mutinied! When you have mutinied, do you still belong to God?  Whose justice can you still fall back on?  Whose side are you still on?  Couldn’t the roaring lion devour you?  Think about it, what will happen to you if you mutinied against the USA – punishable by death!  What happened to Korah?  The ground swallowed him (and the others) up!

Don’t handle “God knows who are His, lightly”!  Many believers think that they, without self-examination, can simply claim “God knows who are His”, and expect to be safe.  For a start, everyone who confesses or professes the name of the Lord must turn from wickedness.  Revolt or rebellion, for example, is already wickedness or is iniquity!  Furthermore, as I have said, when it is foundational, it is applying on-going, meaning, both righteousness and justice we are to be embraced on-goingly and perseveringly. 

I don’t know you

Again I remind, just because we are a child of God from our born-again or conversion, it does NOT mean God necessarily know us all the time; just as Korah in the Numbers 16 account was a child of God.  And so, please do NOT embrace heretic teaching that says righteous living is NOT key in our working out of our salvation (Phil 2:12); righteous living and justice must be embraced all the time, failing which, you must come back into it.  It can be, if you don’t embrace justice (His justice), God may say to you, “I don’t know you!”  It can also be, if you don’t embrace righteous living, God may say to you, “I don’t know you!”  Obviously, if you pervert His truths or propagate untruths, you are NOT embracing His justice, for justice is about truths and God’s decisions, which must be right and just (they cannot be otherwise).

Applications included these:

Matt 7:21-23 - 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Luke 6:46-49 - 46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

Pro 1:29-33 - 29 Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD {fear the Lord here refers to hate evil or wickedness; “fear of the LORD” - KJV}, 30 since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, 31 they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. 32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; 33 but whoever listens to me {in so doing, you are embracing His righteousness and justice} will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."

 

Anthony Chia, high.expressions

PS: Whether it pertains to salvation, Christian living or service, turning away from wickedness is a must.

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.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head

Heaping burning coals on another’s head, this phrase can be found in Scripture here:

Pro 25:21-22 – 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.

Rom 12:20-21 – 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

What does the phrase mean?

I came across this phrase reading a blog article, and I kind of not see how the described scenario by the author was explaining the meaning of the phrase or could have lighted up the “now I got it” bulb of the writer.  This is NOT meant to put down that blogger whom I, from time to time, tried to be encouraging.

It is NOT negative!

Heaping burning coals on another’s head is NOT having a negative connotation.  It is NOT hitting back or taking revenge or “doing someone in”.  It is NOT doing a bad thing to another.  Whether you are reading the Proverbs text or the Romans text, it is clear from the 2 verses, in each case.

When one is hungry and you give him food to eat, or when he is thirsty, you give him water to drink, how can that be bad?  In the Proverbs, the 2^nd verse said that the LORD would reward you.  God would NOT reward you for your bad action, would He?  Then, if you are looking at the Romans text, the 2^nd verse said NOT to be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  In other words, such action(s) is(are) good, NOT bad, NOT evil.

 

From living tradition
From the way life went about for the Jews or people in that period and place, we can understand why “heaping burning coals on another’s head” is NOT a bad thing, but a good one!

In olden days (we can still find it at some, more remote places), people carried all sorts of things using their heads.  I was told by a missionary from Madagascar that bricks are being moved about by people (women, mostly), being carried on the heads, 10 or more bricks, each time!  Of course, most of us have seen pictures of water jugs or jars being carried on heads of people.

Now, in the holy land in those days, even fire braziers could be carried on the heads of people when there was a need.  Fire braziers were a “must have” in the homes, and fire was kept “alive” all the time to keep warm, etc.  When it was cold in the desert-land, it was cold, and people needed fire to keep warm. When it happened that the fire in the brazier died out in a home, a person might carry the brazier on his head over to his neighbor’s house and ask for some burning (live) coal.  If you were a generous or charitable (loving) neighbour, you would heap the burning coals from your brazier to the person’s brazier on his head, so that the person could bring the fire back home to warm the people who had lost the warm because the fire of their brazier had died out.  Of course, from there, you could also get the fire to cook your food, etc.  See, it was and is a good act, not a bad one.

The closest one to this, that I have lived out, is this: When I was a boy, I lived with my parents in a saw-mill.  In those days, much work was still manually done, and there were many labourers working on the processes of turning a log into wood and planks for building construction, etc.  Because there were many labourers and they stayed there, in the sawmill, too, and they needed to be provided with meals and drinking water, there was a common stove compound where the wood scraps were used as fuel to boil water and make meals.  There were several huge stoves there, and the fire was kept alive most of the day (except the night).

My father worked as a timber grader in the saw-mill; and there were other families in the sawmills, most were families of the office staff, although some of the labourers also had moved their families into the sawmill quarters.  The families, the mothers, they had to cook for their family to eat.  And the families were allowed to take the burning charcoals from those huge stoves that I mentioned earlier; and I would see and sometimes assisted my mother to take these live charcoals from the compound stoves to our own household kitchen stoves to cook the meals of the day.  We did NOT bring our kitchen stoves to the huge stove compound, though; what we did was that we would bring tin containers (“dustpans” in shape) made out of rectangular biscuit or oil tins (cut diagonally across, giving 2 triangular “dustpans”).  From the common huge stoves, we would use a common shovel to get the burning charcoals and heap them into the “dustpan” containers.  We would walk back home holding the “dustpan of burning charcoals”. When we reach home, we would pour the live charcoals into our kitchen stove, and mom could then have the fire to cook or boil water.  This would be a daily affair.  Oh, I could picture my childhood in the sawmill compound.  Oh, how time has passed me by!

Well, the sawmill company did a charitable thing – allowing everyone to access and take, on a daily basis, the burning charcoals, home for cooking, etc.  Otherwise, we would have to spend time starting and building a sustained fire for cooking or boiling water each time.

Now, there are of course, people who said that, nonetheless, when used in Scripture, of that phrase, it was NOT linked to that kind of tradition; I leave you to consider.

“Love-shock approach”

If you have looked close enough, you would have noticed the words, “your enemy” in the texts.  Enemies are expected to disagree, bicker, fight, hit at each other, plotting against each other, and even gloating at each other – these are normal attitudes and actions of people at enmity.

God’s exhortation to us, as approach, is always love (unto righteousness), if do, always do good, never evil. Instead of an eye for an eye, or evil for evil, we are exhorted in Scripture, to reciprocate in love; be good, be generous, and be charitable.

When people are in need, but they do NOT offend us or afflict us, we help them, through various ways; in doing that, we are practising love.  Such people are looking to love and charity, and we respond in that direction.  Such people are NOT our enemy; we do NOT need to “fight” them.  Such a person, let’s say, had NOT eaten for 3 days, and approach you for food, and you respond with giving over of your lunch pack.  There is no shock there, but it is that you have responded as what was wanted and expected by the person in need.  The person is NOT your enemy; you do NOT, NOT only do NOT help him, with his hunger, rob him of his blanket that he needs to keep himself warm, do you?! 

The above described one way of practising love - be charitable towards another, a neighbour or a stranger, even. 

Now, if you do NOT accept the origin of the phrase, “heaping burning coals on another’s head” has to do with the tradition of living as outlined above, you should be able to accept that it was referring NOT to a bad thing, but a good act, as outlined by me under the caption of “It is NOT negative!”  It is doing good; an act of loving-kindness, a practice of love.

Used on our enemy, it, “heaping of burning coals on another’s head”, is exhorting a more difficult kind of practising of love.  It is shocking, and it is a love-shock to your enemy that you would love him/her.

Jesus epitomised both love approaches

Jesus’ own life and ministry epitomised both kinds of practising of love.  Jesus, for example, prayed for people to heal them of sickness and free them from oppression.  Such people, they were NOT Jesus’ enemy; they were people in need, and Jesus healed them in practise of love, although it did glorify God the Father. 

On top of that, Jesus practised loving His enemy.  At the Garden of Gethsemane, for example, the enemy of Jesus came for Him to catch Him, and from that capture, Jesus was crucified.  The Apostle Peter fought back, cutting the ear of one of the enemy’s men.  Jesus did what the 2 texts of this article, is about: the enemy now has a need, the ear was cut off, and needed “fixing”; Jesus fixed the ear back, and healed it.  Jesus did contrary to what enemy would be expected to do to each other (I have explained what enemies were expected to do to each other, above).  I call this the “love-shock” approach of practising love.

This approach of practising love is difficult for the practitioner (part of “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” {Matt 5:48}), for it goes against our natural tendency, but we are nonetheless exhorted to practise it, even directly by the Lord, Himself. 

Examples of such love-shock approach exhorted by the Lord, included: to turn the other cheek over, too (Matt 5:39; Luke 6:29), give the tunic, too, (Luke 6:29), and love your enemies, do good to them, bless them, and pray for them (Luke 6:27-28; also Matt 5:44).

Heaping burning coal on another’s head can be under the first approach, the simple moving out in love for another, a neighbour, or even a stranger; but it can also be employed in a love-shock approach, doing it on your enemy.

Romans 12:19 talks about vengeance-what!

Some of the people who are too quick to assume “heaping burning coals on another’s head” as a fight back or revenge, because they saw and focussed on the verse before, Romans 12:19.  Yes, Rom 12:19 talked about God does avenge, and we are to leave it to Him, but that does NOT mean that the common stance for us to take, is to have revenge, even through the Lord. 

The common stance was given in another verse earlier, in v18 – “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”  Yes, the most common stance for us, is to live at peace with everyone, and that includes our enemy.  It is NOT, “Ok, now Lord, whack the fellow!”  And the more excellent way is to love-shock.

What is the purpose of the love-shock approach?

It, love-shock approach, is out of this world, you-know, you crazy or what?!  It is out of this world; that I can agree with you, for the Bible said so. 

Scripture tells us that when we have entered into salvation, we are no longer of this world, although we are still in the world.  The ways that we are to live, since we are now God’s people, and of His Kingdom, are those of His Kingdom, and NOT those of this world; it is out of this world.  In other words, you and I don’t find it natural, but supernatural to do such love-shocks.  When we embrace and live out the ways of the Kingdom of God, we are being supernatural; and over time, we are to be naturally supernatural.  The thing to bear in mind is that, we can grow over time, and we are to grow in the right direction, over time, and so, be overcoming in the world.

What is the purpose of practising love?  Why are we to love; to love God, and to love our neighbours (which include brothers and sisters in Christ, and enemies, too!)?  Let’s say we leave out the “why” we love God, just to keep the article short, why is it that we are to love our neighbours?

Because we love God.  Because we love God, we love our neighbours.  God loves men - you, me, and she and he, and the one over here or there or everywhere.  That is the will of God; and so, when we love God, we share the heart of God; we should want to let God love (men) through us; that which is what He wants.  We are therefore, God’s vessels for extension of His love to men. Or, I always tell believers that we love men with the love of God, not with our own love!  Scripture said that our love, all of it, is to be devoted to God - we love God only, and no other, and we love Him with our all. 

Viewing it from the command perspective, God commands us to love, and so, we have to love, for to love Him, God, we are to obey His commands.  Jesus said those who love Him, obeys His commands, and those who obey His commands are the ones who love Him (John 14:15 & John 14:21).  Scripture said that the second (second greatest command), like the first (to love God with your all), is to love, to love your neighbours.  We have to love men, don’t we?!

Then, there is the “we have benefited from God’s love, and we would like other men to experience God’s love”.  The primary source of love is God, and it is He who loves, and we, He would like to love through, too.  So, it is NOT we decide who should be loved and who should NOT be loved.  Jesus said, if we love the loveable, and people who love you are loveable (unless you reject the love), what extra do you do, or what credit do you expect to receive?!  We are to love even the unloveables, like our enemies; we are NOT to pick and choose for God, indirectly, saying to Him, “This one, you can love; that one, you should NOT love or I don’t want you to love him/her!”  So, we can see, if we practised NOT, at all, love-shock approach, we are NOT training ourselves to be open to God’s loving freely, who He wants, through us. 

Jesus, in Matt 15:21-28, for example, used the word, “dog” on a Canaanite woman, yet in the end, Jesus still let love flowed out to the woman by doing as requested by the woman, healing of her daughter of demon-possession.  Was there really love-shock here?  The Canaanite woman did NOT really got a love-shock; she was expecting Jesus to help, and she gave Jesus an “faith-full” answer to Jesus’ questioning of why He, Jesus, should be addressing people who were NOT the children of God.  I submit to you, it was NOT just a matter of this healing/deliverance was recorded to show us that faith could draw God to heal, it was also to love-shock the disciples.  In other words, the occasion was also to teach the disciples that they must be prepared to act in love towards anyone God wanted to extend love (Before Jesus finally attended to woman, Scripture recorded that the disciples was wanting the woman be sent away).

Although in the above scenario of the Canaanite woman, Jesus’ agreement to deliver her daughter, did NOT appeared to have love-shocked the woman, it is possible that one of the purposes of love-shock approach of practising love is to bring the recipient to a position of humility, be contrite of heart, be filled with godly sorrow leading to repentance.  Perhaps, some of the disciples of Jesus did have that effect, realising that they were wrong to have simply brushed the Canaanite woman aside.

Also, I do NOT know about you, if you have some hang-up on this, it is up to you, but as far as I am concerned, I want more of God’s love, and when we practise love, we will experience more of God’s love. 

John 14:21 reads, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

We know that the 2 prime commands of God are to love Him with our all, and to love our neighbours.  Here, in the first part of v21, I have already said, Jesus said that those who obey His commands are the ones who loved Him, Jesus.  And in the commands, one of the 2 prime ones is ….. love our neighbours.  The 2^nd part of the verse said, (1) those (those who obey) would be loved by the Father God, (2) Jesus too, would love them, and (3) Jesus would show Himself to them. Do you want more of these?  If you want to be modest, and think you don’t want them or need them; well, I want them all, more!  And so, what must I do?  Obey the Lord’s commands, prime of which, is to love my neighbours.  In other words, I need to practise love.

God the Father showed it

It is possible that some stubborn people would NOT turn from their unkind or evil ways, when experiencing the love of God the normal way, receiving acts of kindness of love from people who are NOT their enemy, but love-shock can open people up to see God for whom He truly is.  God the Father showed it to us!

Are we NOT the enemy of God, in our fallen state?  So, what did God do; did He simply fought us, did us in, or plotted against us or gloated at us?  No, He did NOT do what we would expect, or did the common things we, in our fallen state, would do to our enemy; instead He heaped burning coals on our heads – He let His one and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the Cross, so that through Jesus’ propitiation, we may be reconciled back to Him, and have eternal life.  Although we were at enmity with God, we still, like in the 2 texts, Pro 25:21-22 and Rom 12:20-21, needed spiritual food, and we needed the living water; God gave His Son to us as the food and drink. 

What did Jesus say about His body and His blood?  Eat and drink these (His body and His blood), in remembrance of what He did – that while we were at enmity with God (sinners), in an act of love, both the Father God and He, the Son, agreed to overcome the evil Man has done (in the Garden of Eden – The Fall), with good.  Jesus is the good, and the Good News.

Even if our enemy’s conscience, at times, is NOT pricked by our love-shock practice of love, and no repentance results, we are to still to practise that, so that we can be free vessel of God’s love flowing out to touch lives.  Did all men come to repentance and received in, the love-shock by the Father God (and Jesus, even)? No, NOT all accept Jesus.  When God still went ahead, why shouldn’t we?!

So, remember now, practise love, including shock your enemy with your love. Keep up the heaping of burning coals on another’s head!  It is love in action; good, and NOT bad or evil.

PS: It means you have forgiven?

To have heaped burning coals on another’s head = you have forgiven?  Some people link it to Lev 16, and Isaiah 6:5, in this regard. 

In Lev 16, the High Priest brought a censer of burning coals from the altar to before the most holy place (before God), and it was God who forgave. 

In Isa 6, prophet Isaiah, when given the vision of the throne-place, was highly conscious of his sinfulness (“Woe to me!”), and an angel took a burning coal from the altar and touched the lips of Isaiah, cleansing him. 

So, when you heap burning coals on another’s head, are YOU forgiving the enemy, and God will reward you (Pro 25:22)? Or, are YOU overcoming evil with forgiveness (Rom 12:21)? 

Although I am one of those who would take John 20:23, literally, to mean when I forgive my enemy (wrongdoings against me, NOT another), God would forgive that person, on my account (that I have forgiven),  I kind of feel it is too much of a round-about way of saying thing, if indeed, that is the intent of the text – that if we would feed our enemy or satisfy their thirst, it means we have forgiven the person.  In my view, forgiveness, need to be specifically done, first, in our heart, apart from any separate gestures.  The latter are only evidence of a state - that you have forgiven.  It is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.  Does one get a reward, specifically, for forgiving; or is it we are commanded to forgive?  I think it is more like the latter.  Rom 12:21 is clear that it said to overcome evil with good.  Even though, forgiving is good, is the good here ONLY confined to forgiveness?  Probably NOT. 

My inclination is still that “heaping burning coals on another’s head means, “helping to bring the person (the enemy) to a position of seeing the error of his ways, and change”.  It is, it MAY bring …., and NOT it definitely would bring (there will be some who are stubborn and would NOT see the errors of their ways, despite whatever good you have done) repentance, but God honours your effort and heart-condition, and rewards you (Pro 25:22), and what you have done (seeing to the needs of your enemy) is good, loving-kindness, and likely to, NOT only confound evil, but also melt evil.

I know, some people linked it to Lev 16 and Isa 6:5, but still come to a similar conclusion that I have just expressed in the above paragraph; but really, I have felt no need of that linking (to Lev 16 and Isa 6:5) {too tenuous}, and could still arrive at the conclusion.  I believe the sensitivity to the Holy Spirit in us, helps, in spiritual understanding of the Word.

 

Anthony Chia, high.expressions

 

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.