The Fall of Man (Part III)

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 final part, we are covering the controversial issues of the topic. The word, “controversial” is subjective. What one considers as controversial maybe to another, not so. We have to bear this in mind when we look at the issues. In general, any ambiguity is purely due to the lack of details or information given to us, in the Bible. There is of course, nothing wrong with the Bible, it was never the intention of God to have everything written, how many volumes do we want the Bible to be?! Of course, it is always possible that we have not fully understood everything that was written in the Bible, including the cross-referencing and cross-linking of verses in the Bible.

Here are some of the “controversial” issues:

1. The serpent is Satan.
2. The death referred to by God in Gen 2:16-17 is not the physical death (1st death) but condemnation to eternal living in suffering in the burning lake of fire in Hell, an eternal separation from God.
3. Notions of spiritual and physical punishments
4. The consequences of the Fall pass down generationally, affecting all of mankind
5. Concerning the physical punishments on woman
6. Concerning the physical punishments on man
7. Punishments on Satan
8. Tree of life, Garden of Eden, and the banishment
9. Why did God give the prohibitive command in the first place?


The serpent is Satan

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. 2 He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1-2)

How do we know that the serpent was referring to Satan? Genesis is the first book of the Bible, Revelation is the last. It is from Rev 20:2, that we conclude that the serpent is Satan. Rev 20:2 –

He [the angel with the key to the Abyss and a great chain] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


The death referred to by God in Gen 2:16-17 is not the physical death (1st death) but condemnation to eternal living in suffering in the burning lake of fire in Hell, an eternal separation from God

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 said that if man breaks that command, he would surely die. Did man break the command/prohibition/law? Yes; 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, was God’s word of no effect, empty threat, or worse still, God lying? Of course not, and so, the death that God was referring to, was not the natural or physical death.

We say 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.

[23/03/2011 - I have deleted the paragraph on Luke 16:26 concerning the rich man and Lazarus, as there is no consistency on view of whether or not "Abraham's bosom" Jesus referred to, was at that time, in Hades or Heaven.]

Notions of spiritual and physical punishments

In the above paragraphs, I mentioned that having to live in Hell is an eternal separation from God, and is a spiritual punishment, on the spirited soul.

My understanding is that the spirited soul cannot die (in our sense), so any punishment would be a living punishment, and having to live in Hell eternally in the lake of burning fire is a living punishment for the spirited soul. I prefer to use the term, spirited soul (and not spirit) because we know that the rich man in Hades, in Luke 16, had feeling, he could feel.

Likewise, for the bodily or physical life on earth, God meted out living punishments for man. Of course, I have explained the rationale for God not killing Adam and Eve immediately. Had He killed them immediately, instead of letting them live and gave birth to children, we might not have been able to tell apart that, the death referred by Genesis 2:16-17, was referring to the 2nd death, because it would have been masked by the 1st death (had God killed them immediately). Had God killed them immediately, still God would have been true to His word, despite we might have missed the concept of the 2nd death; the physical death or 1st death would have placed man into the spiritual realm which eventually would have led to the 2nd death, with no hope for man. But because God was and is true to his original purpose of wanting man to populate Heaven, God allowed man to live on, without contradiction to His words of Genesis 2:16-17, and set into motion the salvation plan of mankind, which until today is still unfolding. But in the allowing of man to live on, on earth, God decided to mete out living punishment for the physical living on earth. These physical punishments were listed for us in Genesis 3:16-19.


The consequences of The Fall pass down generationally, affecting all of mankind

To many Christians, this has been accepted, nothing controversial about it. But there are still those who did not believe the Original Sin was capable of being passed down the lineage of mankind. These people accept the concept of sins, and that we need Jesus to forgive our sins so that we do not end up going to Hell, but they would not accept the concept that at birth, before they even did anything, they were already sinful. Denying the passing down of the Original Sin is denying the primary justification power of the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Maybe some people aren’t perceiving well enough; in that they can accept the physical consequences, as listed under Genesis 3:16-19 because they are indeed seen in man, even to today, but they cannot accept the spiritual consequences of man, of being damned to Hell, and loss of the original righteousness, being also passed down the lineage of mankind. Perhaps, that is the point, the unregenerate man go by sight, and not by faith.

The Apostle Paul clearly believed that the original sin passes down the generational line of man (he expounded also, the concept of justification in the Book of Romans). This is what he said concerning the passage of original sin down the line of man:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come (Romans 5:12-14).


Concerning physical punishments on the woman

For the woman, God said her childbearing pain would be increased as one punishment. It is wrong, I believe, to suggest that there was supposed to be no childbearing pain before this. God said He would greatly increase, implying that prior to this there was still supposed to be childbearing pain, but not as great a pain.

Also, I believe, it is wrong to suggest that prior to this fall there was no intention for man to procreate. The commission for man to be fruitful and multiply was given independently of this event, most possibly prior to this event.

God did, however, say here that a woman’s desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her. What are we to say if a woman does not desire her husband? What if she does not allow him to rule over her? I believe I am being objective when I say that this is God’s punishment, and we should just accept it. It is NOT because I am a man, I say this. If you are a woman, this is your lot. Accept it. It is the punishment that came down from Eve, NOT your fault but just accept it. But you may say, but I have no (more) desire for my husband. What is a punishment? If you want to bear a child, you accept the punishment that there will be pain, despite you NOT liking the pain. Similarly, if you decide to marry and have a husband, desire him, even if you feel NOT liking that. It is also the same with ruler-ship. This is NOT my words but God’s words - a husband will rule over his wife, accept it. When a command is for the man, the man must accept it, likewise if it is a command for the woman, and you are a woman, accept it. NOT accepting is disobeying, and disobeying is a sin. Do NOT doubt the good intention of God; that was what Eve did, and it led to the Fall of Man.

Now NOT everything is gloom and doom. In fact, we do find many cases of women having relatively easier childbearing, have no problem desiring their husbands, and also no problem having their husband ruling over them, or that their husbands are ruling over them NOT in dictatorship but in love. If we have the punishments coming through to us as light and NOT heavy, IT IS GRACE. Be grateful, be thankful to God. He has been gracious to you.


Concerning physical punishments on the man

To the man, God said he was to obey Him, God, over and above anyone else, including his wife, but he had failed to do so – 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 will not be yielding good food for man all the times, at times all man will get, will be thorns and thistles, and man will need to sweat for his food until he dies.

As for the woman, the same can be said for the man, not everything is gloom and doom. Again, if you have it easy, and there are many men who have it easier than others, it is by the grace of God. Be grateful, be thankful to God. He has been gracious to you. Instead of boasting, you should bless others; that I believe, will please God.

I want to say it is NOT right to say from here, God’s instruction was for man to eat only plants – be vegetarian. Please, just because animals were NOT mentioned here, it did NOT mean man could NOT eat animals’ meat. When God created all the plants and animals, and then Man, and God declared that Man was to have dominion over them all; to me, that included eating the animals. Just because it now mentioned here that Man were to eat the plants of the ground (through toiling and sweat), are we to say that prior to this, man did NOT eat anything, NOT plants, and NOT meats – this way of interpreting the Scriptures, to me, is inappropriate!

In some sense, I believe for both the woman and the man, the set of punishments selected here by God, were aimed at punishing the flesh side of Man. I believe perhaps, God cursed the ground because the flesh/body part of man was from the ground. The soul and spirit parts or the spirited soul (part) of man was already cursed through the breaking of the command/prohibition/law God gave to Adam (of not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil). To better understand the makeup of man, you can read my article on the Tripartite man – man is body, soul and spirit.



Punishments on Satan

The serpent, of course, being the mastermind, deserved to be cursed; from being the most crafty wild animal, it became the most cursed animal.

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.

I believe the serpent referred to, in The Fall, is Satan, and I believe the crushing of the serpent head and striking of the woman’s offspring’s heel were fulfilled on the cross – the crucifixion. The woman’s offspring was referring to Jesus Christ, and on the Cross Jesus crushed the head of Satan, and Satan struck Jesus’ heels.

I believe the crushing of the head of Satan is to be taken metaphorically to refer to the rescinding of all authority of Iniquity (or Sin) and Satan over Man.


Tree of life, Garden of Eden, and the banishment

Next, we look at the tree of life, Garden of Eden, and the banishment. 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.


I have 2 possible reasons for the above actions (Gen 3:23-24) of God. They are my beliefs, and so you can either accept them or reject them. But before we look at that, we need to consider what the “live forever” meant in Gen 3:22 –

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen 3:22).

From my article on the Tripartite man, I drew the conclusion that a spirited soul (the soul of man is a spirited soul) will live forever, meaning even when we die the physical death, our spirited soul lives on, it does not become nothingness; rather it either ends up living in blessedness eternally in Heaven or suffering in the lake of fire eternally in Hell. So, if this being the case, i.e. the spirited soul of the man doesn’t die, after physical death, why did God still talk about not letting man to eat of the fruit of the tree of life? I believe the tree of life confers life to the physical body, meaning if one takes of it, he will not die, physically, the highest dream of men for all times.

But from the Book of Revelation, we also read of the relevance of the tree of life in Heaven. How do I reconcile my suggestion that it is for a physical condition and yet it, the fruit from the tree, was for the taking (eating) in the heavenly realm which was also believed to be a spirit realm? My answer is this: I believe the life conferring power of the fruit from the tree of life works on both our current earthly body as well as the incorruptible body that God would give us, mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Perhaps, the incorruptibility of the body is maintained through the taking of the fruit. Like I said, this is my belief, you can disagree with it.

Now we come back to the reasons for not allowing man to reach for the fruit from the tree of life. The first reason, which I believe is not difficult to accept, is that God’s word must stand. God gave a command/ prohibition/law, the penalty of which was 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, meaning man could not be allowed to live forever. If man could physically live forever, and this (in line with my belief above), would be possible had Man was being able (to continue) to eat the fruit from the tree of life; and God’s word would be of no effect, empty threat, or worse still, it implied God lied. If there was not 1st death, it would be difficult for 2nd death to be entered into (I would not say impossible as everything is possible with God). So, man could not be allowed (to continue) to reach for the fruit from the tree of life.

The second reason, which is more subjective to some, is my belief that in the first place, God did not create man to be able to handle the knowledge of good and evil, at least not without additional input from God. God only created man in His image, not as God. I believe the tripartite man, body, soul and spirit, as created by God, was not capable of handling the knowledge; and that was the reason God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. Had Man not eaten of the fruit, and received not, the knowledge of good and evil, there would not be a problem/issue of man living forever. But that man had taken the fruit and had received the knowledge of good and evil which he was not created to wield, it would be disastrous when he and all his offspring live forever. Putting it very crudely, one Satan was bad enough; if we have a horde of satans that have physical body which cannot die physically, it would be havoc!

To make sure there was no way Man could ever come back into the Garden and eat of the fruit from the tree of life, God securely blocked the Garden from men (Gen 3:24). Until today, mankind had not been able to locate the Garden of Eden. Sorry folks, God would never let the elixir tree or its fruit be found by men. If you want to taste it, get yourself to Heaven!

[Added: 04/04/2011 - As an additional side note, I believe it is NOT unreasonable to assume that Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit from the tree of life, as part of their diet, before The Fall, for Gen 2:16-17 clearly said that apart from the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, fruits from all other trees, Adam and Eve could eat. That was the reason, in earlier paragraphs, I have enclosed in brackets,"to continue" as in "NOT to (continue to) to eat of the fruit from the tree of life."]


Why did God give the prohibitive command in the first place?

I believe the discussion of The Fall of Man will not be complete if we do not at least think about why there should be a prohibitive command/law for Adam in the first place. This prohibition, we read in Genesis 2:16-17 -

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

It is my belief that God, who was and is love, created man to be like Him, capable of loving. But loving has no meaning if there is no free-will. When affection is forced or there is no choice, it is not love. Love necessarily implied freedom to choose. And this freedom to choose is man’s free-will. If there is nothing to choose, there can be no exercise of free-will. God’s idea of love is a choice (Of course, it is also about faithfulness, and commitment, about obedience, and about sacrifice.).

For example, God chooses to love us. He made a choice. He could have chosen not to love us, but He chose to love Man. Is anyone worthy of God’s love? No, so why does God still love us? It is because it is a choice; he simply chose to; no one forced God. For us, man, we too, have to make a choice, whether or not, we want to love God. If God forces us to love Him, what God gets is not love. The moment it is forced, the affection is no longer love. We do have a choice, don’t we?

Another example, we can choose to love God or money. God’s word said that we cannot love both. So, we have to make a choice, money or God? Can a wife not love her husband? Can a father not love his son? Can. Why? Because it is a choice. Many wives chose not to love their husbands, and fathers, not, their sons (The Book of Malachi talked about hearts of fathers would be turned to their children, and the hearts of children would be turned to their fathers, in the last days. What was implied therefore, is that it is possible that fathers do not love their children and the children, their fathers). Many children chose not to love their parents. A good example is found in my country; we have a law that forces children to provide for their aged parents. How come this is necessary? It is because children can choose not to love their parents. It is very sad, but it happened again and again. When the law is used, what you see is not love; yes, the aged parent gets the money but money is all he/she gets, not love. The law merely forced it, and when it is forced it is no longer giving in love. It is not free-will at work.

People divorce; and one of the reasons is simply, at least one party had chosen not to love the other. Also possible, is a party of a marriage might have chosen not to love the other, but perhaps, love another, outside of the marriage. There is a choice available, and in this particular instance, the party choose not to love his/her existing partner anymore (but to love someone else). Let’s say there are only one man and one woman left in the world. The man has to marry the woman and the woman, the man. There is none to choose from. There must be something to choose from, in order that free-will can have any meaning, although choosing can be between apple and orange (e.g. money and God), and not necessarily between apple and apple (one woman over another woman!).

It is my belief that free-will was instituted in Man so that love may become rooted in Man. Someone actually asked me, how come such a severe punishment, eternal death? I can only think of this answer: For such a previous thing, love, to take root, we need a “weighty” punishment, much like for the preservation of life (precious), we, have to put the punishment for murder as death.

It is no wonder that Jesus defined love this way: If you love me, obey my commands (i.e. you exercise your free-will and choose to follow God’s instructions), and those who obey my commands, love me (your obedience is not to be out of fear of punishment, but because you love God) {John 14:15 & 21}.




Anthony Chia – At the base of it all, love is a choice.

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.

If I have not love, I am nothing

Article verse: 1 Corinthians 13:2 (NIV):

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

Apostle Paul’s motivation for ministry
If I have not love (have no love), I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2 put it very clearly this truth, understood by the Apostle Paul. The latter said that if he had the gift of prophecy and could fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if he had a faith that could move mountains, but had not love, he was nothing. This tells us the kind of motivation that we must have behind our ministry or our serving. It looked to me that Paul was saying that our ministry or our service would not count much or even count nothing before God if our motivation was not love.

Our heart-condition, God knows
If what we do is motivated by a desire to gain something for ourselves or to gratify our flesh, such ministry or serving really does not count. If we serve or minister to get appreciation and applause of others or for self-glorification our motivation will not be pleasing to God. When God is not pleased, He may not bless our efforts and without His blessing, our effectiveness may suffer. This is particularly so, if what we do requires God’s supernatural action. In faith healing for example, it is God who heals, we have no power to heal; when our motivation is wrong, God may or may not extend His hand of healing. In many natural things, sure, because of natural endowments, we are capable of achieving much, without God’s intervention, but even so, God knows our motivation, and when the heart-condition is not right, despite that we have success, and praises of men, God may not be pleased.

Ascribe all glory to God
One motivation which is clearly not acceptable to God is to glorify oneself. All glory must be ascribed back to God. God does not allow His glory to be shared with another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11, Mal 2:2 {KJV}). Do not listen to preachers who tell us to lap up the glory on ground of our royal identity in the Kingdom. The Apostle Paul only talked about our sharing of the Lord’s glory in the future (not in this life), and even for that we must presently share in His suffering.

A success does not necessarily mean God is pleased with you
Actually, there are many things we can do that seem right, and good and honorable, and these may include preaching, teaching and praying for others, but if our motivation is not right, they will not be credited to us, despite success of our endeavors. The success of our endeavors does not necessarily mean that God is pleased; for one thing there is always Romans 8:28 - in all things, God (still) works them for the good of those (may not be us) who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.

The right motivation
Our right motivation should be God’s compassionate love for people. Our ministry and service must be motivated by selfless compassionate love for others. By this, we are not to expect reward for what we have done. Of course, in many scenarios, the blessed person may thank us, and even show us honor, but we are not to be motivated by such. It is right, though, for the one who have received ministry to show appreciation and honor those who serve, if possible; this is part of practising honor.

What if I have not the compassion?
Should one still minister or serve if one has no compassion? Should one wait until one has compassion before one serve? I was once embroiled with nagging personal problems (in fact, I am still in them), and had lost compassion for others, preferring to adopt the attitude that I should let some others (presuming they have no or less problems than me) to help those in need. Such attitude is in fact very real for many of us, and I believe it is the devil’s tactic to cause us to be inward-looking. I say one should still serve even if one lacks compassion. This is not the same as saying that you can go serve with wrong motivation. I am saying if you have no bad motive, and it is just that you are not feeling compassionate enough to serve or minister, you should still do it.

In His time, He will make all things beautiful
I like to borrow Jesus’ saying in the story of The Rich Young Man (Matt 19), “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” What I am saying is that when we are having problems of our own, we often find it difficult to have the compassion to serve or minister to others (because our mind is always on our own problems, not solved, not helped by others), but it is possible for God to infuse His compassion into us over time if our heart-condition is right. For one thing, from my own experience, God will grant you the grace and strength to persevere in your problems, and when you have that, you will begin to find it easier to give selfless compassionate love to others. Maybe after sometime, you may even find it very meaningful to serve God and to be His minister, to be His physical presence for those in need of God. Of course, depending on the nature of your own struggles, and the ministry you want to get involved in, you may want to talk to your mentor, overseer or church pastor who will be able to monitor you in your ministry or service.

I am believing that as I minister more and more with the love of God, He will increase the effectiveness of my ministry or service.



Anthony Chia, high.expressions – Yet, still I know my life has not been all that pleasing to you. Lord, help me not to ignore your holiness, for you are first of all, Holiness.

PS: For the record (journaling), I ministered singing prayers (my first) to a brother in church altar ministry on 30th May 2010, 10:30am service. This brother was moved to tears. Just for the record, I had also prayed for his 4-years old son, John, for brain damage affecting one side of the boy’s body.

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.

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.