Psalms 15

In this Psalm, David asks the question who may dwell in God's sanctuary; one who is righteous and just. Then David goes on to provide the answer to his own question, and he says: 

"He whose walk is blameless"; meaning, not one who has not being morally upright at all time, but who might have been morally wrong yet is forgiven and is now not blameworthy, now blameless. He is a person who stands blameless now. 

"and who does what is righteous,

 who speaks the truth from his heart

and does not speak ill of others,

who does his neighbour no wrong

and casts no slur on his fellow human, 

who despises a vile man

but honours those who fear the Yahweh, 

who keeps his word

even when it hurts, 

who lends his money without interest

and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. 

He who does these things

will never be shaken." 

David does think that one who accepts bribery is wrong and does not merit to be in God's sanctuary. Yes, bribery blinds the eye. Bribery takes away the good from the one who deserves and gives it to the one who deserves not, and this why bribery is wrong. 

Spending Money Wisely

This is the sermon that the pastor of the church I go to preached last Sunday. I was very much blessed by the sermon and so I thought of putting it down here. This is not a word to word reproduction of the sermon, but I think these are the points. 

1. Do not buy things IMPULSIVELY. 

( Just because you have money, don't buy things as you see them. See what you need, and then buy them. Avoid unplanned shopping) 

2. Do not live beyond yours MEANS. 

( Do not spend beyond your income. Learn to adjust your lifestyle within your income) 

3. Do not be DECEIVED  by the desire for more. 

( Learn to be content with what you have. Human wants are unlimited; but learn to limit your desire. If you don't you'll change jobs forever, get into the cut-throat competition till you die... you won't be happy.)

4. Do not be a SLAVE to technology. 

( It's okay to possess an old phone, and old car... a television that is not the latest model.) 

Because 

1. We are to HONOUR God with our money. (Prov. 3:9-10)

2. We are to PROVIDE for the needs of our family ( 1 Tim 5:8)

3. We are to PROVIDE for the needs of others ( 1 John 3:17) 

4. PAY our debts ( Rom 13: 8, Ps 37:21)

5 SAVE for our future ( Prov. 30: 24) 

And the Bible further says that

1. The resources we have is not really ours; it belongs to God. 

2. And we are to use the resources wisely

3. And we are to give an account in the end to God.

NB: The pastor has given me permission to share. 

Human Moral Imperfection and the Desire for Forgiveness

Do you ever struggle with guilt? The guilt that arises because you have done something that is bad or because you have failed to do something that is good. I think all of us would have done things that are bad or would have failed to do things that are good and therefore ought to be done at that point of time, and yet walked away without having to do it. Incidents such as these might occur over and over again. However, the guilt may not strike to every individual as much as it would strike to certain individuals. If you have ever struggled with guilt, it would serve as an evidence that you are not morally perfect; that you have at times being morally imperfect. 

But what about those who do not struggle with guilt? Can we say that they think that they are morally perfect. I don't think any grown person can really say that he or she is morally perfect. The guilt may not strike as hard it has happened to certain other people. In fact, the guilt may not just be there. But to feel guilty or to be aware of being guilty of certain bad actions is not necessarily the only outcome after having done a bad action or failed to have performed a good action. Some people just tell lies without any apparent sense of remorse even when there is no apparent compelling reason to tell a lie. By 'compelling reason' I mean a situation such as this. A friend of yours is hiding in your room. Some people came to ask you if she is hiding in your room. You sense that they intended to kill her with their machete. You are pretty confident that your friend is not wrong. In such a situation, telling a lie to save her would be a compelling reason to lie. So when we go out to the market the taxi driver may lie to us or the shopkeeper may just lie to us without any compelling reason. And when such people lie, they may not appear to have any sense of guilt. But that does not really mean that such lie is a good thing; a lie is still a lie. For such people, a lie is not followed by a sense of remorse. 

Upon probing if such a lie is bad or good, the one who lied would admit that such a lie is not a good thing. In fact if the truth is found out and the person is confronted, it is highly likely that the person would be put in a defensive mode or even be ashamed of the lie. But often a lie is not caught, and even if caught direct confrontation is avoided. And even when confronted some people would try to cover up with another lie. And this evading continues. But again evading the truth is rather like admitting implicitly that a lie is considered a lie and it is not good. 

But all of this is to do with individual's perception of good and bad. The idea of good and bad goes beyond what the individual understands for oneself. You jump the traffic light; the policeman will catch and imposes fine on you. You cannot really say that you are not aware of the traffic rule and therefore you should be let off the hook. Even when you are being honestly ignorant, you broke the law, and you must pay penalty. Now again we can argue saying that not every legislated norm is good. Fair enough! Definitely depending on the kind of government in power, laws sometime are legislated unfairly. For example, a dictator may refuse voting right to certain ethnic group just because they are different or he may even suspend the Parliament. The law is passed in such cases, yet given a free and fair condition to argue back and forth, one can establish a case that such a legislated norm is not right. So there are situations when one can say that laws are not good. However, it still remains that there are also quite a lot items of legal norms that are good and must be honored. Breaking such honorable laws, knowingly or unknowingly, entails moral imperfection on the part of the individual. Guilt may follow or not, but moral imperfection is a logical consequence of such violation of legislated norms! 

In so many literary pieces, one can read cases of men and women who have grappled with guilt because of having done something bad. For example, king David in the Bible felt terribly bad because of the kind of bad actions that he committed. First he committed adultery with a woman named Bathsheba. That was bad. But he realized that this act might possibly be found out. And therefore he had her husband killed in a battle. Being the king he was able to hatch such a plan! That was really bad. David struggled with guilt and he expressed the guilt. David did not think that he was morally perfect. Mahatma Gandhi felt terribly sorry over the fact that he could not be with his dad at his dying hour. He was with his had but then he had gone to be with his wife when his dad would have breathed his last breathe. And so when his dad passed away, he would have been sleeping with his wife. He felt that it was a moral failure on his part. Gandhi did not consider himself morally perfect. These are great figures, revered by thousands and millions of people across generations. They thought they had their moral failures. What about you? What about me? I don't think I am morally perfect. There are things that I had done and guilt did not strike immediately. There are things that I had done and guilt just struck so quickly. Examples. When I was in school, probably in the half-yearly exam of 9th standard, I did not get good result as I had thought of. I was afraid to show at home because I got bad marks. I fudged my result and put principal's signature myself. I showed at home that I got good result. Nobody at home came to know about it. I lied! I lied about my mark few years later again. My result did not show as I had anticipated. I fudged my mark sheet again.  I lied! Years later, I realized that what I had done was not right. Guilt struck me only years later, not immediately. But because guilt struck me so hard I discarded my fudged mark sheet and got hold of the real mark sheet. The time when guilt struck me so quickly was when I had watched porn videos. This is not something that took years for me to let the guilt surface in me. The guilt surfaced right after having spent sometime watching porn. And these cases show, at least to myself, that I am not morally perfect. But these are just a handful of examples. If I have to list about my moral failures, it's just so many. 

And I do think that each one of us has moral failures. In fact, to insist that one is morally perfect sounds rather like lying to oneself. But given this pervasive moral failure and therefore guilt, how do we get forgiveness or how do we sort this out? After all grappling with guilt for ages and ages is not good. It does lot of harm to oneself, if not to other people around us. For example, in Shakespeare's Macbeth, we read of lady Macbeth having to hallucinate because of her struggle with guilt. She had played a key role in getting the king murdered. And now guilt is catching up with her. Had she gotten rid of this guilt sooner, she would not have to face this predicament. But she did not get rid of this guilt. And now her life is in ruin because of her guilt. It is an extremely  wise way of living not to lie to oneself, and therefore it is important to get rid of guilt. 

If we broke traffic rule, we pay penalty. But what do we do if there is moral failure and therefore we struggle with guilt? Go and reconcile with whom I have wronged! But if I feel guilty because I have watched porn, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? If I felt guilty because I had fudged my marks, to whom do I go to get rid of my guilt? When king David committed sin, the first person he went to was God. He thought that since God is his Lord, to whom he is to be accountable to, he must first set things right with God. And so he asks for forgiveness from God. I believe that since God is the giver of my breathe and the moral law within, I owe my life to him and my reconciliation must take place with him first. Given this factor, I ask God for forgiveness. God is a loving God, and when I seek forgiveness, I believe, he forgives. When I see forgiveness from my mother, she forgives, because she loves me. Why won't God who loves me forgives me when I seek forgiveness! Anyone who loves you will forgive you, if you seek forgiveness. If I had stolen something from X, of course, it is good to settle with X. So if something of this sort is required to settle things, settle it. But not all of moral failure is of this sort. And when it is not of this sort, I think settling with God is what really matters! 

There is moral failure on my part from time to time. And each time I come to God. I don't want this moral failure. Yet there is a strong pull in me that drags me down and so sometimes I fall. But each time I get up and say sorry to God, he forgives me. I don't think I will ever be able to live a morally perfect life, a life that is morally perfect for, say, a year. But then the cross of Jesus Christ tells me that my sins are being forgiven and that I ought not to commit sins again. 

I imagine that the world would be a better place if all humans would address the guilt that one struggles with. If we grapple with guilt, then the possibility of not doing the same action is there. The possibility of not stealing again, the possibility of not killing again, the possibility of not lying again and so on. Given that guilt elicits in us a response that prevents us from committing the same bad action, I think, it is fair to say that awaking in us a feeling of guilt for the bad actions we have done in the past is good. Having a guilt free life is better compared to a guilt ridden life! The problem is thus not so much about not having a solution do deal with guilt because forgiveness is available so as to get rid of guilt; the problem is rather that many people do not wake from their 'moral slumber' and are not able to receive forgiveness.

Blessed are those who desired forgiveness because of their guilt and have received forgiveness! 

Poula and English

( In Poula) 4 Siidonou rekounou Johan Baptist nou mah khailu peire le dayu vei dziikhao dayu nasii paodoupoa vere. 5 Alia Judea teidei hinou ea Jerusalem nuhdu hinou mai alaosou Johan ko keire donou tave. Alia puletao nou mah paopa-a puhnou peletaoye Jordan Rei hinou dziikhao dapeie.

6. Johan hai racho mainou souyu sahnii nou banouwe, alia souhee khyakho nou puh khyahi khopfiie, alia puh touso nou rekou khahzii ea laivoudziie.

( In English) 4 John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; an they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:4-6 RSV)

Why Platinum Jubilee?

Jubilee comes from the Hebrew word 'yôḇēl' ( ram's horn), which when blasted signals the beginning of the Jubilee year. Leviticus 25 gives the significance of the Jubilee year. The Israelites were to count off seven sabbaths of years amounting to forty nine years, and consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty or release throughout the land. This 50^th year shall be the year of Jubilee. The concept of Jubilee is thus inseparably linked to Sabbath year – the year after the sixth year. In Old Testament terms this Jubilee year is thus to be observed every fiftieth year.

In Luke 4 when Jesus invokes the writing of Isaiah's use of the concept of Jubilee, he sets a paradigm shift about Jubilee. Jubilee is no longer going to be consecrated in a cycle of fiftieth year, but its significance is to mark the lives and character of the church everyday. In Jesus a new day is dawn – the Jubilee year is for every single day. Given this significance, Jubilee year is not really about organising a grand programme once in fifty years. The idea of organising a grand programme called Jubilee on the fiftieth birthday of the church is not quite the most appropriate way to mark the significance of Jubilee. Tagging 'Silver', 'Golden', 'Diamond' or 'Platinum' before Jubilee does seem to make it even less significant. The world has made 25^th anniversary as Silver Jubilee or the 60^th year as Diamond Jubilee. But Jubilee for the Old Testament Israel was meant for the cycle of every 50^th year. Israel then failed to practise it faithfully is a different matter – just as the church today perhaps fails to live up to the significance Jesus taught and demonstrated in his three and half years of ministry.

As given in the Leviticus, the Jubilee year must be a year when the slaves are set free. Bonded labourers, to use a modern terminology, are to be set free and be given a new beginning. The land also must be left uncultivated, and the people are to eat on what grows naturally – trusting in the Lord to provide for their needs. The land sold, say, to due economic hardship is to be returned to the original owner thus setting a pattern for a fairly egalitarian society. Jubilee year thus sets a pattern for the Israelites society to be fairly egalitarian. The New Testament pattern does not specify all the detail but the significance of the Leviticus text is embedded when Jesus pronounces the dawning of the Jubilee year as he reads the book of Isaiah.

Given this theological significance, what kind of envisioning and implementation takes place when a grand programme on Jubilee is being organised by a church in our society? Do we see those who are into drugs and alcohols being released from the bondage to freedom? This is highly unlikely because addiction of this sort generally requires treatment longer than a three-four days of grand Conference. But do we see people being set free from greed and selfishness that often are responsible for oppression of the poor and the helpless? Or to put it differently, do we see through such Jubilee programme the poor and the helpless being set free from their misery? Do we see the sick being healed and cared for as an outcome of a grand event called Jubilee? What kind of changes do we observe in the lives of the people and the larger society through massive spending on an event called Jubilee except for the fact that the particular church hosting the programme is now much poorer? Unless the programme triggers renewal in the lives of the church members, organising Platinum Jubilee appears to be a waste of resources.

The more important point, however, is that Jubilee should not really be about an event; the message of a Jubilee year must become part of our lives. As an individual and as a corporate body – the church – the message of the Jubilee year that releases people from all sorts of bondages – greed, hatred, poverty, sickness, pride etc. – must be practised and be observed in our living. Thus the significance of a Jubilee year is not in organising an event, but in being a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. The resources are worth spent on an event called Jubilee if it helps the people enlarge their understanding of who Yahweh is and become ethically better. The growth in understanding is to enable the person live more beautifully, ethically correct. To that end if an event to remind the people of the significance of the Jubilee year is organised once in fifty years, it makes sense; otherwise, it makes no sense. It makes no sense all the more if an event called Platinum Jubilee is organised 25 years after the last Jubilee without taking into consideration the purpose of Jubilee as taught and showed to us by Jesus Christ.

( This article appears  @ Hornbill Express on 26th January, 2015) 

Chapter 16: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 16 is titled 'Scientific Explanation of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Objectionable'. In this chapter, one particular lesson one can draw is that the theological idea of the Fall is not undermined by endorsing the theory of evolution. In the process, one may raise a question why there has to be such a huge debris of death before human eventually emerged at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Well, if one could go back to the Scripture there are various events where one does not really know the reasons why things happened this way instead of that way. Yet those who were situated in that particular stage of history did not fully understand God's way of working. However, they trusted God's plan. Similarly, even about death in the evolutionary process, one may not really know the theological reason why it was so; however, the fact that death was there does not really undermine any other theological idea -- whether it's about the Fall or about the fact that God is in control or that God is the creator. In the end the fact is that whether it's this way or that way, God is the creator.

Chapter 14: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled 'God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought'. Chapter 13 is here. In this chapter, the author argues that Christians should avoid two extreme viewpoints. The first point is that Christians should not think like a deist. A deist is one who thinks that God exists but is not really involved in running the affairs of the world. Rather God left the world to run on the mechanism that has been 'wounded' into its system; so that it's the gravitational force, the law of motion etc that pull the universe along. The author argues that when the Scripture speaks of God as the creator in six days, he is talking about God's intimate involvement in the creation process. The other extreme is to insist that God is a micro-manager for the affairs even today. This is not so because creation process has ceased; in the sense that creation process is not going to be an everlasting process. Creation process has a beginning and an end. There is a teleological purpose of God for the created order. Well, the author argues that God is more of a sustainer after the first six days of creation.

The author's point is well taken. There is not so much of a controversy in this regard among the Bible believing Christians!

Amos 4

God chastises Israel by sending diseases that will strike down both humans and non-human world. He did not give them enough water to drink and food to eat. All because He wanted Israel to return to him. Yet Israel refuses to return. The people would go to worship centres, like Bethel and Gilgal, and performed the rituals; they offered tithes, sacrifices and offerings and then brag about them.  Their worship is superficial, not genuine. They love to show-off! So God said that destruction is at hand. The people of Israel will be carried away as captives.

Here God was particularly not happy with the religiosity of the people. Going to the church, singing choruses with guitar, giving money in terms of thousands, attending Convention/Fellowship/Conferences, Church dedication and various programmes and then bragging and make a boastful pose is what God is not pleased with. The Israelites giving tithes and then bragging is like our present day Christians giving tithes to be considered as a highest giver by the church and his name being read out in public. God hates it! Is the church perpetrating such practice, eliciting a kind of competition among church members so that maximum fund comes about for the church? God hates it! For such hypocrisy and oppression of the needy, God charges Israel in this chapter, and tells them that He, the creator of the world, is coming to bring judgment on the people.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 5

Here is chapter 4, where Nick gives a preliminary response to those who argue that justice is virtually absent in the New Testament. In this chapter, Nick argues from the New Testament to demonstrate that justice is very much part of what Jesus teaches and demonstrates; and thus leaves behind a legacy, a command, for his disciples to continue.

But first a brief remark about terminology. In Greek literature, say, Plato's The Republic the Greek term 'dikaiosune' would be consistently translated into English as justice. However, in the Bible it is not consistently translated like that. In the New Testament, which is originally written in common Greek,  the same word 'dikaiosune' is not always translated as 'justice'; it is more often translated as 'righteousness'. For example, as in Matthew 5 & 6 -- Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for dikaiosune (v.6); and Blessed are those who are persecuted for dikaiosune (v.10); Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his dikaiosune (6.33). All these verses have dikaiosune translated as 'righteousness' instead of 'justice'. Why such a difference between New Testament and The Republic, which are both Greek literature? The Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, which possibly was translated in the second century BC translates the Hebrew word tsedaqa as dikaiosune and  mishpat as krisis which is more of a legal terminology.  Thus Tsedaqa becomes dikaiosune in Greek and righteousness in English; while mishpat becomes krisis in Greek and justice in English. However, it has to be said that this translation is not 100% accurate, and whether the verse has to be translated as righteousness or justice has to depend on context too. Nick would thus hold that Mat 5.10 should have 'justice' instead of 'righteousness', provided we assume that 'righteousness' is more about moral status of the individual and 'justice' as denoting inter-personal relationship. 

Nick uses NT scholar Richard Hays' commentary to argue for his case. Nick argues that Mary's song in Luke 1 is about anticipation of justice that the Messiah would usher in. Luke 4 where Jesus reads out Isaiah's text and declares the arrival of the promise then and there is about justice -- justice for the poor, the weak and the prisoners. Furthermore, Nick argues that Jesus' ministry includes those who are left out of the society -- the deaf, dumb, blind, paralytics etc. -- besides lifting up those who were at the bottom-- the poor, widows, orphans, aliens, imprisoned. Jesus remakes a society that is inclusive, and this is about justice. 

Does Jesus consider human being to have worth? He does, argues Nick. 'How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?' asks Jesus, indicating that humans have worth. Furthermore, Jesus says that human is worth more than a sparrow! Nick opines that it seems fair to conclude that Jesus' belief in equal human worth is the reason for showing no partiality between  thosewho are ritually clean and unclean or between those who are rich and poor.

As is the case with any good thinker, to fend off criticism, Nick does hair splitting of his arguments at various points. I am not going into the detail in these posts. Any objection to his arguments should be held back before reading his book. 

Amos 3

Through Amos, God continues to speak words of destruction that will descend upon Israel. He reminds Israel of how she was brought out of slavery from Egypt, and yet not do the right thing now. Instead her people store riches in their fortresses... The rich ones have summer house and winter house, adorned with highly decorated pieces like ivory. And from the previous chapter, we learnt that such wealth often than not comes at the expense of the poor. But here we need pause and ask if there is any problem with being rich. Why did God say that the mansions will be destroyed?

God was not against a person being rich. But then there are two things we should remember about riches. First, how does one become rich? God is not pleased when a person becomes rich using unfair and wrong means. He does not want that a person gathers riches through exploitation, cheating, robbing etc.; he does not want that riches come through bribery or corruption. Second, what does one do with the wealth one has? God does not want the wealth to be used for luxurious and extravagant lifestyle. I think we can make a difference between living a simple, comfortable and beautiful life and luxurious, extravagant and wasteful life. He wants us to use wealth to help those in need. This may take the form of investing in ways to create jobs, for example; not using wealth in ways that will make the needy dependent and parasitic, but lifting them to stand on their own feet. 

God's judgement on Israel came true in 721 BC when she was conquered by the Assyrian empire and her people taken as captive to foreign land. Within a span of 20-30 years of Amos' prophecy, God's judgment came on Israel.

Chapter 13: The Lost World of Genesis One

The thirteenth chapter is titled as 'The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature'. Chapter 12 is here. Chapter 13 argues that Science as an academic discipline does not deal with certain category as much as Scripture, at least as it is in Genesis 1, does not deal with certain topics. For example, scientific inquiry is about the world or the nature that can be observed and can be verified or falsified. Scientific inquiry does not ask question like 'what is the purpose of human existence?' This sort of question lies outside of the domain of scientific inquiry. Likeness, at least in Genesis 1, the author is not really interested in dealing with the question of the material origins of different objects/living organisms; the author is rather concerned with something else. Thus, whether evolutionary theory is correct or incorrect, the author is not really concerned with such ideas. The Bible does say that God is the author of all, yet it does not really say how God authored it. His handiwork is thus not really opposed to the way scientific process describes it. 

I think it's fair to put it this way: God is the author of the world and the Word, and the two are not going to be contradictory.

Amos 2

In the first chapter of Amos, God speaks to the neighboring nations of Israel/Judah. In the second chapter, God speaks to Judah and Israel though there is small passage that is addressed to Moab. To Moab, God expresses his anger and judgment because of what she did to the remains of Edom's king. The bone of Edom's king, not the dead body as such, was burnt by Maob. Since it was a sign of extreme hatred and cruelty, God promises that Moab will be punished. 

To Judah, the kingdom of Amos comes from, God says that he will send fire to destroy the fortress because the people rejected God's law...because they refused to keep God's command. 

To Israel, God has different issues. Israel was morally corrupt. The poor people were oppressed and taken advantaged of. God had reminded them again and again that widow, orphan and the aliens were to be cared for because they were vulnerable. Instead the people of Israel oppressed them, and God was not please with it. They would take garment from the poor as a pledge for the money borrowed and yet used the same garment during their immoral activities. God had told them as a nation that the poor man's garment cannot be kept with the lender at night because the poor man needs it to cover himself; yet by keeping the poor man's garment with the money lender, the poor remained in cold throughout the night. This is oppression of the poor people. In spite of having done so much for the people of Israel, even those dedicated to serve the Lord were abused and dishonoured. Thus God says that he will crush the people and there won't be none to rescue them! 

The idea of taking advantage of the poor and creating life difficult for them is now no longer the way it used to be in Amos' era. Our social and economic context has changed a lot. The poor does not give his garment as a pledge for the money borrowed; it is now his field or house or something of that sort. God did allow taking of a pledge so that the poor man remains responsible for the loan taken. But God did not allow making his life miserable by keeping the garment with the money lender. When do we make the life of the poor man miserable when his house/field has been kept as a pledge? I think when the interest rate is so high so that instead of being able to pay back the loan, he is driven to sell the pledge to pay back the loan, it amounts to making his life miserable. What God is upset about is making the life of the poor man miserable. This may work out in different ways in different context. But in certain context, high interest rate is that which makes the life of the poor ones miserable. This is oppression of the poor men, and the Spirit of God is not pleased!

Amos 1

In the first chapter, the word of God came to Amos concerning Israel's neighbouring nations. God's thunderous judgment through Amos came on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Ammon. And these were the reasons why God was pouring out his judgment on different nations. Damascus was so cruel that she 'threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth' (v.3). Gaza and Tyre were merciless, engaging in selling people who they conqured to other nation. They were not selling just the soldiers who fought them but the 'whole community', which would include women, children and the aged. Edom is Esau's descendants and are related to Jacob's descendant Israel/Judah by blood. Discounting this relation, Edom stifled compassion and pursued his brother... For this the Lord will send fire and consume her cities and fortresses. To extend its territory, Ammon ripped open pregnant women and committed heinous crime. On all these nations, the Lord is giving his judgment and for the sins they committed He will pour out his wrath and thus kings and cities will face stormy days ahead. 

One common feature different nations committed here was war crime. War was not uncommon then. Yet God expects fair conduct in war. The issue whether war is ever just or not is not the point here. War takes place; that God acknowledges. What God takes issue with each nation here is army excesses. And for the war crime the nations committed, God pours out his punishment!

The concept of war crime then and now, as acknowledged by international bodies, are different. The modern version of war crime is more refined and broader. For example, use of chemical agent to target civilians would be considered war crime today. Chemical agent was not there in the past. God's anger today would include gassing civilians, not just tear open pregnant women's bellies. God's command not to murder remains unchanged throughout centuries ( killing is different from murder; murder is not justifiable by definition, killing can be justifiable), yet in certain areas God's expectation changes-- as in war crimes that nation-states are to abstain from. 

Amos: Introduction

Amos comes from Tekoa, a small town not so far from Bethlehem. He makes his living by taking care of sheep and sycamore-fig tree.  He comes not from a royal family or priestly class, but God calls him to speak forth primarily to the people of Israel, and also to Judah. He speaks forth God's word during the time of Uzziah of Judah (792-740 BC) and Jeroboam II of Israel ( 793-753 BC). 

During the days Amos speaks forth God's word, Israel's religious life do not please God. People lead a lifestyle far away from that which would please God. Amos speaks forth God's fury against corrupt lifestyle. God words through Amos is relevant even today for people who profess to believe in Yahweh. But how do we conduct our lives now in ways that God hates? Reading through the book of Amos will bring out similarities between their corrupt lives then and our corrupt lives now.

Chapter 12: The Lost World

Chapter 12 is titled 'Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough'. Those who want to refer to chapter 11 can do so here. This chapter briefly discusses about other theories like Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Framework Hypothesis etc. 

What's the problem with Young Earth Creationism? YEC proponents argue that the universe is created somewhere between 6,000-20,000 years. Not everyone holds the same view, but compared to the current scientific understanding, YEC's view of the age of the earth is very young. They want to read the Scripture at face-value, yet their face-value reading is not really face-value reading. How do they reconcile current scientific finding with their interpretation of the Scripture? For example, current scientific understanding would say that the stars are millions of years old... after all the light from the star to reach the earth would have taken million of years, and this means that the existence of the stars would at least be millions of years. One solution for the YEC is to say that in reality God made the stars only recently yet HE made the stars look really old to the observers. John does not get into this much! But if we apply similar reasoning to other areas, the result would be devastating: God made our scientific enterprise fail to arrive at a correct understanding! If that is so, what kind of God are worshiping? A God who deceives human being? YEC's concept leads to a demon; not the God the of Bible! 

Old Earth Creationism like the view proposed by Hugh Ross too reads too much into the text. Framework Hypothesis is fine, provided it adds the component of 'functional reading' of the creation narrative into their view. Gap theory too has a flaw.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 3

This is Chapter 3, titled as 'Justice in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible'. The previous chapter is here. This chapter argues about the concept justice found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (I shall use only 'Bible'). The next chapter will argue from the New Testament.

Nick begins by stating the two positions as: justice as right order vis-a-vis justice as inherent right. In these posts, I am going to refer the proponents of the two positions as right order theorists and right theorists respectively. Right order theorists can endorse natural right; and one can say that this sort of right is conferred by God. But, Nick continues, right order theorists are not happy with the idea of inherent right or the idea that human right in an inherent right. So his attempt is to do an inquiry if the idea of inherent human right is found the Bible or it's not there. At the end of the chapter, he argues that one can fairly draw out the idea of inherent human right from the Scripture. But before he goes on to do that, he takes on Oliver Donovan and gives a counter-explanation from the Scripture about the nature of justice found in the Bible. This is how he goes about doing it. 

Nick argues that Oliver O'Donovan's understanding of justice found in the Bible is incomplete. O'Donovan's understanding does not take into consideration the concept of primary justice, says Nick; only the idea of rectifying justice is present in O'Donovan's thesis. How does one explain primary justice and rectifying justice? Primary justice is about the condition of a society where justice prevails. But when a robber breaks into a house and runs away with the loot, primary justice is impaired. Now rectifying justice will have to kick in by catching the thief and returning the loot to the owner. So rectifying justice is about seeking to rectify the primary justice that has been impaired. Now when O'Donovan gives the explanation of the concept of justice found in the Bible, Nick argues that O'Donovan thinks that biblical concept of justice deals only with rectifying justice. Nick finds O'Donovan's finding inadequate. Nick says the idea of rectifying justice can be there only when the idea of primary justice is there; it makes no sense to speak of rectifying justice without taking into account the idea of primary justice. And in the Bible one can find, says Nick, the concept of primary justice as well as  rectifying justice.

Thus in the Bible, Israel is called by God to live justly in its society. God also enjoins non-Israelite nations to live justly. Living justly is required not only of Israel, but of non-Israelite too. Why so? Because God is just and holy. This holiness of God (morality purity) is not something that obtains when God observes a law imposed on him from without; but holiness is rooted in God himself. He cannot be unholy just as God cannot cease to exist. (I am reminded of Plato's Euthyphro dillemma; but if one understands God's holiness as rooted in himself as Nick and others argue, the dillemma really dissolves. But this is not really part of the what the book says.) Nick does not delve much into this area, but goes on to the text to argue that Israel considers God rightly holding the people accountable for their actions. And when people sin, they seek God's forgiveness-- or must seek forgiveness. Thus God has right to hold the people accountable and that God has right to seek our obedience. Nick argues that that was the way biblical writers understand about God and human relations. I think this is a fair conclusion from the Bible one can gather. This is a key point about rights.

Right God has over the people are understood to be grounded by Israel's writers on God's excellence. "In that assumption by Israel's writers, that God has rights grounded in God's excellence, is to be discerned a recognition of inherent natural rights". This is another  key point Nick makes! I think the idea that God has inherent right is rather a strange but indisputable point.

From this concept of God possessing inherent natural right, Nick argues that human being as little gods possesses inherent right. Human being are created little lower than angels/ human being are created bearing the image of God; so humans have inherent right. 

Chapter 11: The Lost World

Chapter 10 is available here.  Chapter 11 is titled  "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis''. This chapter mainly argues about the kind of exegetical principle one should use while reading the biblical text. The author argues that in interpreting a text, it is important to understand what the author is trying to tell to the primary audience. Those in the 21st century are not the primary audience of the Genesis text, and therefore, we shall not be getting the meaning of the text right unless we plough through the historical context in which the text was first composed. Some readers try to read scientific truths in the Scripture saying that all truths is God's truth.There is a danger is doing such thing. For example, the scientific truth that we now consider is the truth may change few decades later. Moreover, such reading may be reading much more than what the author intended. Since God has spoken through human author, who is situated in a particular cultural and historical context, to read the Scripture correctly, it is essential to take this conditions into consideration while trying to get the meaing right. Concordists way of reading the text does injustice to the author's intention. (Concordists read the text such that the text will concord with the scientific finding of the day.)

Genesis text is in a way a response of the author to the prevailing religious view of the day. The general belief then was polytheistic; the Genesis author offers a monotheistic view. 

Even while reading religious text of the Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs, how important it is to try to understand as the author intended his audience to understand!

Chapter 10: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 10 seems more like a reiteration of the points made in the previous chapters. In case one wants to read the previous chapter, the link is here. This chapter is titled 'The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Materials Origins'. The chapter merely reinforces the point that text of Genesis 1 provides an account of functional origin, not of material origins. The author adds that the fact that the text speaks of functional origin does not mean that God is not the creator of the cosmos. There are evidences in the biblical text that God is the creator of cosmos. For example, New Testament writers begin to be concerned about the material origins, which the author of Genesis was not, and thus provides theological reason that God is the creator of the cosmos. 

Another point the author adds here is the point that the text does not really suggest for old earth or young earth. It does not say anything about the age of the earth. The age of the earth has to be deduced from scientific findings, not from the biblical text. However, once it is granted that the scientific findings about the age of the earth is correct, it raises a theological point whether death was there even before sin entered the world. The author argues that death of human enters through sin. But death as such, say, of plants or animals would have been there even before sin enters the world though Adam and Eve. The growth of plant which was created on day 3 requires death of at least cell. And Adam would have death skin (epidermis). It is not possible to imagine deathless life.

Chapter 9: The Seven Days of Genesis 1...

Chapter 9 is titled 'The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Related to the Cosmic Inauguration'. This chapter develops further the argument made in Chapter 7 and chapter 8. This chapter specifically tells about the significance of the temple inauguration.

God resides in a temple. But to settle down in a temple, there is a process. And the process involves construction and inauguration of the temple. Exodus records about Moses making the Tent of Meeting. And when all the preparation about the Tent of Meeting is done, the tabernacle is inaugurated. This process of inauguration is also the process of creation of the tabernacle... because unless the tabernacle is inaugurated, it just remains a constructed tent. The constructed tent becomes a tabernacle after it was inaugurated. And inauguration is completed by the glory of the Lord filling it! This duration about the inauguration is not quite certain but it does take time... 

Genesis 1 gives the description of the inauguration of the cosmic temple. And it says that here the duration for the inauguration of the cosmic temple is done over 7 days.

Chapter 8: The Cosmos Is A Temple

This chapter and chapter 7 are closely related. Both the chapters talk about the relationship between the Temple and the cosmos. This chapter is in a way easy to summarise because the author himself has summarise the points he tries to make in the chapter. So having argued, he finally gives the points he makes in the chapter this way: 

1. Whether it is in the Bible or the surrounding Ancient Near East culture, temple is viewed as a microcosm. It is not the biblical author borrowed the idea from the surrounding cultures; it's just that up to certain extent there is similarity in the way people thought.

2. The cosmos is understood in certain pattern by the people then; and the way they construct and design the temple is made to resemble their understanding of the cosmos. 

3. The function of the temple and the cosmos have similarities. For example, it is understood that God is to dwell in the temple, but it is also understood that the cosmos is the dwelling place of God. This is how temple is viewed as a microcosm.