Mar 04
adminEvangelism a man from Galilee, Caesar, civil order, freedom in Christ, one life in a crowded world, oppression, Saul of Tarsus, stability, Vermont Royster, walk in the light
The Wall Street Journal has a tradition of sending out the following article every Christmas. Every year it moves me to tears.
If you have not yet subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, please start this year. At an age when most of the mass media only promote liberal causes, Christians need to equip themselves with facts. At least you will get a different view from the Journal.
Meanwhile I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
With warm regards,
Richard
IN HOC ANNO DOMINI
When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.
Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.
But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression – for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?
There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?
Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.
And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent his gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.
So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.
But it came to pass for a while in diverse places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.
Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter’s star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.
And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
[This Wall Street Journal editorial was written in 1949 by the late Vermont Royster and has been published annually since then. More people need to read it.]
Richard
Mar 04
adminGenesis air, alive, fate, hardware, Lazarus, living creatures, memory, moving around, neshmah, preprogram, reincarnation, software, soul
THE BREATH OF LIFE
People recognize that human beings are not just animals. We may have a body that share common features with other animals, but we are in some unique ways different from them. Religious folks will tell you it is because we have a soul.
When asked what is a soul, many folks will say, “Read Genesis 2:7.” There the text says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Based on that verse many Christians will say that the soul is a unique gift which God gave only to human beings when He breathed into Adam. However, each person has his own soul, which will go back to God when the person dies. For some, their soul will go to the “other place.”
There is no doubt that the Bible teaches that we all have a soul and that we are answerable to God for the actions that we have taken while still in the body. However, I do not believe that Genesis 2:7 should be used as a basis to teach about the human soul. That verse is not about the human soul; it is a verse informing us how God woke up Adam. There are better passages that we can use to teach about the human soul.
Conventional wisdom teaches that the word “breath” in Genesis 2:7 means the human soul. Unfortunately, there is no indication from the text that it should be understood that way. The noun “breath” in Genesis 2:7 is “neshamah”. This word has been translated to numerous English words: blast (3), breath (11), inspiration (1), soul (1), spirit (2), “that breatheth” (1), “that breathed” (2). The number inside the bracket is the number of times the preceding English word has been deemed the most appropriate translation for “neshamah” as used in the passage. The list shows that of all the English words that can be used to convey the meaning of neshamah, the word “soul” is used only one time.
By studying how the English noun “breath” is used in each of the eleven passages one will discovery that the meaning of “neshamah” is rather straight forward. It means a “breath of air” which is needed for oxygen-breathing animals to live. The text may sometimes point out that this breath is a gift from God, in the sense that all life comes from God. The word has nothing to suggest that this breath given to Adam is unique and that only Adam has it. It also does not indicate that this breath will last throughout Adam’s earthly life; or that this breath reports back to God after Adam dies.
Of the eleven times that “neshamah” is translated into “breath” some are more interesting than others. Gen 7:21-22 describes how God used the flood to “blot out” all the living creatures at that time: “All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.” The text points out that the “breath” was in the “nostrils.” So it is not talking about a breath that is the “inner being” of these animals. And it used the term “all flesh” to include birds, cattle, beasts and every swarming thing.
One can argue that the “breath of the spirit of life” refers only to the “breath” that exists in human being, because prior to the term about the “breath of the spirit of life” was the description about “all mankind.” However, Gen 7:23 gives the concluding remark as follows, “Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth.” So clearly the “breath” refers to the breath of all oxygen-breathing animals and not the “souls” of human beings.
Conventional teaching claims that the soul entered Adam when God breathed into him because the result was that the “man became a living being.” However, the Hebrew word “chai” simply means “alive” in the sense of being “lively.” It does not mean “life with a soul”. The same word “chai” is used also in Gen 1:21: God created the great sea monsters and every “living” creature that moves. So “living” means “capable of moving around”, as opposed to plants that do not move themselves around. Again the same concept is seen in Gen 1:24: Let the earth bring forth “living” creatures. These living creatures include cattle, creeping things and beasts of the earth. Nobody will agree that creeping things that are alive have “souls” on the basis that they are “living creatures.” Therefore, there is really very little in Gen 2:7 that teaches about the human soul. It is only a description of what God did to make that young man wake up and move around.
The concept of God breathing “a soul” into Adam’s body to make him a person is widely accepted in Christian circles. It is so because many have mistakenly believed that is what the Bible teaches. Ironically, this concept also makes sense to non-Christians. It fits well with some deeply ingrained secular beliefs. While non-Christians do not believe in a God who loves them, they believe in external forces. (“May the Force be with you.”) Those external forces are typically stronger than the individual. Some may give it a name: fate. A person has no control over his fate. But fate has control over him. Therefore, when some unpleasant event happens, it is not because the person has done something unwise; he cannot be responsible. It is because the external force wants him to suffer. So the picture of some external force “breathing” a soul into Adam fits the non-Christian narrative. Poor Adam was in no shape to resist. It was the external force that started all these misfortunes; Adam was not responsible.
The idea that we are helpless against external forces can be expressed in many ways. It includes events that have happened before we were born. For example, some parents do not know how to discipline a disobedient child. The mother may even yell at the child, “I really do not know what I have done wrong in my previous life to have deserved this misfortunate: why do you have to come into our family?” This statement reflects a common secular belief that a person (the mother) can have a previous existence which is the cause of her present trouble. It says that the son also has a “pre-existence” in that he existed before he was biologically formed and that somehow before he was biologically formed, “he” had a choice of which family to go to. The fact is: that young person could not have “gone to another family.” If that young person was born into another family, he could not be her son. He would have to be a different person because he would have inherited a different set of genes. The wish that the same person be born into some other family does not make sense. Nevertheless, this kind of non-Christian idea is pervasive in the culture and many Christians have incorporated it without realizing that it is inconsistent with reality as well as Biblical teachings.
There is no teaching in the Bible to suggest that a person, such as the mother in the above example, can go through one life and then enter into another life as a different human being. The idea that there are “empty ghosts” lining up somewhere in outer space waiting for bodies to be formed on earth so that the bodies could be entered into is also not a Christian idea. People now know that every human being has a unique body defined by the specific DNA that comes from his father and his mother. Reincarnation is only a mistaken notion in the mind of the unenlightened. There is no reincarnation in the real world.
If we are interested in what the Bible has taught about the human soul, we need to find the appropriate passages. One such passage comes from Jesus. He told us the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 17). If we study what Jesus has taught about life, we will discover that the body is not an empty box to be defined by the soul that enters in. Rather, the soul is the outcome of the decisions made by that person throughout his life. A person’s soul is the essence of his existence; it is the sum total of all his experiences. The experiences are gathered when the person is alive in the body. Even after the body is dead, the soul continues to learn. While the body has a limited life span, the soul lives on in eternity.
Jesus told us the soul has memory. The memory that the soul possesses, however, are all about events that occur when the body is alive. In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham told the rich man, “Child, remember that during your life you received your good things; and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.” Notice the word “remember.” Abraham was telling the rich man that he had received many good things but he had not been a good steward: he lived only for himself. It shows that life is not the result of a preprogrammed soul coming into the body. Rather, life is about the decisions made in the body which affect the soul. Once the decision on how to live is made, the person will lead his life consistent with that decision. Therefore, one must make wise decisions; they affect the soul.
The soul can continue to learn even after the body is dead. The soul is not a preprogrammed entity. After the rich man was told that there is a chasm between him and where Lazarus was, he bargained with Abraham, “Then I beg you, father, that you send [Lazarus] to my father’s house – for I have five brothers – in order that he may warn them so that they will not come to this place of torment” (Luke 17:27). From this account we can see that the soul can have values: it can evaluate what is good and what is bad. It can even bargain and plead for a better outcome. You can even say that the rich man has become a “better citizen”; now that he is “dead” (in terms of the body) he has developed some compassion for the living. He does not want his brothers to end up where he is.
From Jesus’ teachings we can see that life has at least two components. The body is like the hardware of a computer. It is a physical entity; it has a limited life span. It is used for input and output. The soul, however, is like the software. It is there, but you cannot see it or touch it directly. It is the reason why the hardware exists. The soul lives forever.
In summary, the Bible teaches that we all have a soul. However, Gen 2:7 is not an account of God implanting a soul into Adam; it is an account of God waking up Adam. He did it by breathing a breath of air into Adam’s nostril. It is called a breath of life not because it implants life but because it brings out life. In fact some of us might have used the same technique on another person. If we see an old person lying there motionless, we may be tempted to start CPR right away. But if we see a young person lying still, we will tickle him or blow air into his nose to see if he will wake up. In both cases, the air that is blown into the person will not stay with him forever; nor will it grow with him. The purpose of that blast is just to wake him up. Once he is awaken, he will show that he is alive. Then we can find out what kind of life he is going to lead. We will soon see the life that Adam lived was not the result of a preprogrammed or implanted soul; he lived his life the way he wanted. He alone was responsible to what ultimately happened to his soul.
Richard
Mar 04
adminGenesis doubt, dreams, listen, Nebuchadnezzar, temptation
HAS GOD SAID?
The first question that the Tempter asked a human being was “Indeed, has God said?” So the question whether God has said anything on any subject is important. I will discuss here briefly of how God speaks. I believe He still speaks today.
We need to know that God still speaks today, even though many people do not think so. There will always be doubters in this world. In the normal course of events, a question on whether someone has spoken can be answered quite easily by a “yes” or a “no.” But if the question starts with “Indeed, has God said”, it means someone is really not sure that God has spoken.
Doubt can be difficult to overcome if it touches on multiple levels of our uncertainties. The person asking the question may be hinting: “Why would such an important person bother to inform you of this?” In that case the focus is on your insignificance. Or it may mean “Are you sure you heard it right?” In that case the question is on the accuracy of the words you have heard. Or it can imply “Even if you hear every word correctly, you cannot be sure that is really what the other person wants you to do.” In that case, the intelligence of the listener is in question. Therefore, adding the word “indeed” does not add certainty; it adds plenty of uncertainty.
It is always difficult to convince a third party that we have heard the correct message. The only way to be absolutely sure is to repeat the message back to the sender of the message to confirm the intention of the speaker. And that confirmation needs to be done in the presence of the third party. However, that kind of arrangement is not always possible. Indeed, the Tempter would not have asked Eve that question in God’s presence.
Even though God had spoken clearly, Eve had her doubts. She was already having doubts before the Tempter asked the question. So when the Tempter appeared to be empathetic, she was more than happy to expound on what she thought God must have said. Eve was not the only person in the world who would do that. We all tend to hear only what we want to hear. Then we turn around and say that is what God has said. If God says we cannot do something, we will say to ourselves, “It cannot be so serious.” If He says we need to do something, we will say to ourselves, “He does not mean it.” It is hard enough to hear God’s message without our own interfering thoughts. If we live our lives focused only on our own interests instead of God’s interests, then it would be almost impossible to hear God’s message at all.
For the person who is sure that he has heard correctly, there is a simple way to deal with doubters. Had Eve detected the insincerity in the Tempter’s voice, she could have answered this way: “Are you asking me because you want to follow God?”
We have a similar situation in the New Testament. The man who was born blind did not see Jesus when he was healed. But he knew what he had heard: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” He washed there and he gained his sight. The neighbors, however, were not so sure: some would say “yes, that is him”; others would say, “No, he just looks like him.” By the time the Pharisees got involved, no one cared about what the guy heard or what happened to his eyes. Even his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” Although it was clear what had happened, the people had their own agenda. They were more convinced of the righteousness of their own law than the fact that God had done a miracle on a Sabbath. So they pressured the man to change his answer. But as they continued, he asked, “I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” (John 9:27) Therefore, when others tell you that you cannot possibly have heard from God, the best way to handle it is not to agree with them, but to ask them if they want to follow God like you do.
Even though God continues to speak today, many Christians are not sure. There are many reasons for their doubt. One reason is that Christians are surrounded by non-Christians. Non-Christians conduct their lives never having to ask if God speaks. They do not even think He exists.
Another reason for doubt comes from the opposite end, from well-meaning religious folks who proclaim that God talks to them every day. While God has given everyone a brain, some folks believe that it is more spiritual to ask God for answers to whatever life’s problems may be. They think that if God were to give them the answer directly, the chances of success will be 100%. So they go on praying for every activity of the day, asking God what He wants them to do.
When folks ask God what they should do on everything, it does not glorify God. They are treating God like a consultant. Moreover, the questions they ask are often personal issues which everyone faces. They want to know what college to attend or which girl to date. Despite all the display of religiosity, eventually they will end up going to the college that would admit them, or go out with the girl who would agree to go out with them. Why would the Master of the universe bother to speak on subjects of this nature? He is not their servant, is He?
Despite all the confusion today, God does continue to speak. When He speaks, you will hear it. Let me use just two examples from the Bible to show how He speaks. The first example is Adam and Eve. There is no question that Adam and Eve could understand God. Since God walked in the Garden, there was also no question that the Creator was willing to stoop down to the level of human beings to communicate with them.
One may think that it is unusual or unlikely that the Creator of the universe would come and that human beings would not be frightened to death when they see Him. But the fact is God did appear to mankind and they were not afraid. When God came in the person of Jesus, He walked among men. No one questioned how it was possible that God would be talking to people publicly and directly, day in and day out for at least three years. In fact some were so sure that Jesus could not be God that they took up the task of killing Him to preserve their mistaken notion of godliness. The high priest standing in judgment of Jesus tore his own robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses?” (Matthew 26:65) He never thought that he was accusing God of blasphemy.
However, encounters like the examples above are unique experiences. One cannot expect God to be speaking every day to every person like He spoke to Adam and Eve or His disciples. Why? The lesson He revealed in His dealings with Adam and Eve had already taken place. We really should not force God to say it again to us. And if we insist that we go over the same lesson again, the same result will probably take place. If we do not learn from God on what He has already said, we will probably not learn from Him when He says it again.
Another example of how God speaks is the experience of Nebuchadnezzar. Here we see a heathen king who just conquered Egypt and Jerusalem. He had no interest or reason to advance the kingdom of God. But God would give him a dream, one so horrifying that he must have an answer. The king’s dream opened the way for Daniel to explain what God had said.
One reason why God would speak to Nebuchadnezzar (even by using a dream) is because Nebuchadnezzar is a king. God spoke to this “non-believer” so that an important prophecy would be preserved. Even people living in the 21st century know that the dream had to have happened and that Daniel existed because God used this king. After Nebuchadnezzar recovered from his sickness, he was so grateful that he proclaimed with a decree to the whole world about his encounter with God, and what Daniel had done for him. Therefore, when God wants to send a message, He does not have to depend on the believers, He can talk directly to a “non-believer.” When God speaks, even the ungodly will hear.
When God speaks, the purpose is to inform human beings of things that they are not aware of or have not been paying attention to. Therefore, it is important that we listen well. If we do not listen, there will be consequences. And the consequences will show that God had spoken.
In the case of Adam and Eve, they disobeyed God and the result was their separation from God. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, the end result makes people realize that a miracle must have happened: Daniel could not possibly know what kind of a dream Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed unless he had supernatural help. Daniel not only told Nebuchadnezzar the dream, he provided the proper interpretation.
Many critics of Christianity do not believe that God have spoken. They say that prophecies like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are the result of restless minds and that all prophecies are made up after the fact and inserted into the Bible to fool religious folks. To such critics, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar offers a solid rebuke. The book of Daniel was well known at the time of Jesus, who quoted Daniel as “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15). There is no question that the book of Daniel was completed long before Jesus’ time. Daniel the prophet prophesied the fall of Rome. That prophecy was fulfilled only after the work of Christ on the cross was completed, the Stone that would demolish all four empires including the Roman Empire. That proved that God had spoken long before the prophesied event took place. The record was in the public domain before the prophecy was fulfilled in history. There is no room
for doubt whether God had spoken: the facts of history proved it.
In summary, God speaks. Sometimes He speaks to individuals so that the person would know what to do for the sake of the gospel. Sometimes He speaks to a nation so that the whole nation may repent. Whatever the content, if we happen to be there when He speaks we need to listen carefully. Even Old Testament prophets do not get to hear His voice every day.
There will always be people who say, “Indeed, has God said this to you?” To that we should firmly reply, “Yes, the Lord has spoken” and then go ahead to inform the world what the Lord expects from them.
Richard
Mar 04
adminEvangelism, Genesis conversations about sin, God as Creator, separation, sharing with respect, sin versus crime, the other person's experience
SIN
I wish to discuss some common mistakes that Christians make when they try to talk to non-Christians about sin. Usually the topic of sin comes up when Christians try to present the gospel. But because the subject is so unpleasant, most presentations to non-Christians do not go very far; some will end up in heated arguments.
Let me start with a simple definition of sin. Sin is “what man does to cause his separation from God”. When I say “what man does” I include both his indifference and his actions. The purpose of my discussion here is not to cover what theologians throughout the centuries have said about sin, but to share how to talk to a 21st century person who has no concept of sin.
While people today think little about sin, they know a lot about crime. Therefore, when Christians talk to non-Christians, they must be careful not to confuse the concept of sin with the concept of crime. Sin is committed against God; crime is committed against people. Sure, sin against God can spill over to crimes against humanity. But if we want to talk about sin, let us not mislead anyone into thinking that we are talking about crime, or that we think the person we are talking to is a criminal.
Many Christians lack training on how to present the gospel. All they know is that sinners must repent before they can accept the gospel. To get to the point about repentance, some will take the direct approach. The Christian may even start the conversation by asking, “Do you know you are a sinner?” Then he is surprised by the non-Christian saying, “I am not a sinner.”
When a non-Christian says that he is not a sinner, he means it. But the Christian may feel that the non-Christian is argumentative, if not dishonest. The Bible says everyone is a sinner – how can the non-Christian say that he is not a sinner? “I am trying to help him understand God’s love, how can he reject my good intention and do not even let me finish?” So the Christian will be tempted to prove that the non-Christian is wrong. The Christian may proceed to go down a list of “wrong-doings” that he thinks the non-Christian cannot deny, e.g. “Have you ever had an inappropriate thought? Have you ever been angry at anyone? Have you ever sampled a grape in the supermarket without paying for it?”
The fact is: when the non-Christian says he is not a sinner, he is not commenting about his relationship with God; he is not thinking about God at al. The non-Christian thinks that the Christian is accusing him of having committed some crime. So, naturally the non-Christian will defend himself. But he will not clarify his statement by saying, “I have not committed a crime.” The non-Christian will repeat that he is not a “sinner” because that is the word that the Christian has used.
Sometimes a non-Christian will reveal his misunderstanding of the Christian’s question by saying, “I have never killed anyone or even stolen a pencil.” The Christian should take note that the non-Christian has mistaken his talk about sin with a discussion of crime — in some countries, stealing even a pencil is a crime. The Christian must then steer the conversation back to the correct subject. The Christian must not say to himself, “Good, if I can prove to him that he has committed a crime, then he cannot deny that he is a sinner.” That kind of thinking will only degrade the conversation. I have indeed heard more than one Christian leader calling “driving over the speed limit” a sin. You can imagine the result if a member of the congregation repeats that example to a non-Christian in an attempt to convince the friend about sin. The discussion will soon lead to a heated argument – some countries have no driving speed limits; the gospel will never get presented.
There is actually a simple way of getting back to the correct path when the Christian notices that the non-Christian has misunderstood him. When a person tells me that he is not a sinner because he has not hurt anyone, I will say, “Oh, I do not mean to say that you have committed a crime. Not everyone has to become a criminal before he can have a relationship with God. If you tell me you have paid all your taxes, I believe you. But then that is what you ought to do; we all ought to pay our taxes. What I am talking about is not your relationship with society or the law, but your relationship with God.”
It is appropriate in our conversation with outsiders to mention God. However, I prefer to use the word Creator or Maker. That will allow people to know what I mean. Non-Christians all know that the universe is already here before they were born. Even though some may question how Christians can claim that they know the Maker, few will argue that there is a Maker. The Christian also does not need to know all the arguments for or against the Big Bang theory. The non-Christian is well aware that the universe has a long history and that we may be put here for a purpose. So use what the non-Christian knows and continue from there.
So briefly, regardless of how the conversation starts, the Christian needs to stay on course. When we explain the fact that people have been separated from God, we are describing a condition. We are not making an accusation. The more objective we are, the better we will be in our attempt to connect with the non-Christian.
The encounter below will illustrate how we can set up the situation for an effective presentation of the gospel, as well as give an accurate explanation of sin. Although not every discussion can have such a wonderful result, every conversation I had with strangers about the gospel made me happy. When properly presented, these conversations can be enlightening and will build friendships.
The encounter with this elderly couple happened at a church retreat. I was invited to be the speaker. When I arrived, an engineer about 40 years old asked me to share the gospel with his parents who had come from China to visit him and his children. So when I saw the parents that night, I asked politely if I might have the honor of presenting to them the next day at the dining hall the “essential teachings of Christianity.” I made it rather formal because the parents were at least 70 years old. They also looked educated and were very proper in their mannerism. Since I believe that a discussion of spiritual matters is a serious business, an appointment to meet at a definite time and location is entirely appropriate.
The elderly gentleman and his wife were very polite. So my first statement after we sat down around the dining table was, “Please tell me about yourself.” Presenting the gospel means there is a person there in front of me. It is a two-way conversation, not a one-way sermon. It is important that my listener understand that I am interested in him and that I want to hear from him. So the elderly gentleman told me how he worked all his life for the Chinese government: he was just a lowly “public servant.” He was grateful that the government gave him a job. The government even gave him an apartment for retirement. He was content; he had no needs. He was overjoyed in seeing his son again after so many years, and also the grandkids. As he went on and on, his wife looked adoringly at him. How do you tell such a nice couple that they are sinners?
After he finished, he returned the favor and asked me to tell him about myself. So I told him that I did not grow up in a Christian family but that I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. At that point, the elderly gentleman stopped me. “I do not mean to be rude,” he said, “but let me tell you, I am content; I am not asking for anything. Why do I need to have your God?”
When we try to present the gospel, we must remember that the listener is not a fool. This gentleman knew where I was going; he did not want to waste my time, nor did he want me to waste his time. So he wanted me to get to the point. (Amen.)
So I said, “I am not asking you to accept my religion. I am saying that it is important that everyone has the proper relationship with the Master of this universe. And if I may, can I ask you a few questions?”
Without missing a beat, I asked him how his son was treating him. At the mention of their son, both the elderly man and his wife beamed with pride. “So he loves you and visits you often?” Yes. “He has a good job and his kids get good grade?” Yes, yes. “He treats his friends well and he is respected in the community?” Yes, yes, yes.
Then I pop the question, “But suppose one day you hear that your son does not want you to be his dad. You hear from someone that he says that you are dead. How would you feel about that?” The gentleman turned pale – “My son will never do that to me.” So I continued, “I know, I know. But he still treats his friends well, he still works hard at the company, he still loves his wife – the only thing that has changed is his relationship with you. Will you still say that because he is treating everyone else well that he is a good son?”
At that point our conversation was interrupted. I had to do the other things that speakers have to do. I did not get to talk to the couple for the rest of the day or that night.
Early next morning, the engineer came to me and said that his parents wanted to talk to me again – his mother could not sleep at all for the whole night. She could not bear the thought that her son would even theoretically break off relationship with her.
When we finally met, I explained to the couple that while a good citizen should pay his tax, treat his neighbors well and work hard at his job, those are all his normal duties. Those are all the things that he should be doing as a member of society. But if that person has no relationship with God, he cannot say that should be OK to God because he has been treating other people nicely. Relationship with God and relationship to our fellow men are two different matters.
At that point the couple began to understand. The mother said, “If my son would do that to me, I would have lived my life in vain. What is the whole point of being nice to everyone else if he ignores me?” So I told them God wanted a good relationship with them. “But how can we have a relationship with God if we do not know God?” the father said.
With that open question I was able to finish the story. They realized that it was a fact that they did not have God in their lives. The agreed that they had never even tried to find out about God. All of a sudden, having a relationship with the Maker became important. All of a sudden, the work of Christ on the cross made sense. So the elderly couple accepted Christ in that dining hall. With tears in their eyes, they opened their hearts to Jesus. When the retreat was over and I was about to leave, they walked me to my car. They held my hands and told me they would join the church as members.
In conclusion, it is possible for Christians to talk to non-Christians about their alienation from the Maker. Separation from God is a condition that non-Christians can understand. If you ask politely in an appropriate environment, the non-Christian will tell you he does not have God in his life. He will then ask you how he can have God in his life. Tell him about Jesus. You will have the joy of seeing sinners reunited with God in front of your eyes.
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis God has said, ignorance is bliss?, making decisions, not a tree of knowledge, on that day, separation from God, you will be like God
KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
There are many questions that Christians should ask but they do not because they do not want to be embarrassed. No one wants to find out that he is the only one in class who has been thinking about those questions. It is also not a good idea to knowingly ask a question that the teacher may not know how to answer. Embarrassing the teacher in public is not good for the teacher, the class, or yourself.
One example of an obviously important question which is seldom asked publicly concerns that tree in the Garden. Genesis 2:9 says it is “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Does that mean if Adam and Eve never ate that fruit, they would not know what is good and what is evil? Does that mean stupidity is a virtue?
The answer is obviously in the Bible; but where? Of all the things that Adam and Eve were allowed to do in the garden, eating from that tree was apparently the only forbidden activity. So the presence of the tree in the garden was a big deal, but the Bible gives us no description of the physical appearance of that tree or its fruit. The only interesting information comes from its name: the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil.” It leads us to ask why it is wrong for mankind to have knowledge. And if it is about the “knowledge of good and evil”, does that mean human beings should not distinguish between good and evil? Does that mean morality is bad?
In the normal course of events, if someone tells you not to do something, you would immediately demand to know the reason. Not asking for an answer can mean a number of things: (1) you are not sure if he really wants you not to do it (“He must be kidding.”); (2) you know he really wants you not to do it, but you do not want to argue about it (“I will think about it.”); (3) you do not think he is talking to you (“So what is he blabbing about?”). In other words, you do not take it too seriously, whatever the other person is telling you.
There is no question that Adam heard what God said regarding that tree. He told Eve what God said. When the Tempter came to Eve, she did not say she had no idea. She said, “God has said” (Gen 3:3). Sure, God could have told Eve directly, after He told Adam. But apparently Eve also did not ask God why He issued that warning. So we are back to the question why human beings showed so little interest in what God cared about.
Again, in the normal course of events, if you demand an answer from someone who tells you not to do something, that person would have to give an answer. That would open a dialogue for both parties to understand more accurately the situation. However, that was not what Adam or Eve did. Judging from Eve’s answer to the Tempter, she did not ask God; she kept the question to herself and provided answers to her own question.
In her answer to the Tempter, Eve said, “From the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” Here we can see certain details that have deviated from the truth and these deviations provide insights into what Eve had been thinking.
If we read the text carefully we will find that Genesis 2:9 does not say that the forbidden tree was in “the middle of the garden.” Rather, it describes the location of the tree of life as being “in the midst of the garden”, followed by the statement that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also there. In the English language, the phrase “in the middle” can mean “in the center”, a location that is easy to reach from any location within the garden. It also suggests “hard to miss”: it does not matter whether you are going west from the east, or walking north from the south, you will come upon this location. By comparison, the phrase “in the midst” only suggests that it is “somewhere there” within the garden. So what is the difference between these two words and what does it tell us about Eve’s thought process?
An examination of the original text will show that the Hebrew word “tavek” can be translated as “middle” or “midst.” Here you have to admire the wisdom of the translators. Genesis 2:9 is a verse describing objectively the physical location of the tree of life. The translators chose the phrase “in the midst” for a good reason: the mention of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil follows immediately after the description of the location of the tree of life. If the translator used “in the middle” it may mislead some readers to think that God wanted to draw Adam and Eve’s attention not just to the tree of life, but also to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it is better to use the more general term “in the midst”, even if the description applies to the tree of life. However, as far as Eve was concerned, she was not asking why God would put the tree of life in the garden, whatever its exact location might be (whether it was in the “dead-center” or just “in the midst” of the garden). She was paying attention to the other tree.
Even today, when you ask Christians what kind of tree was in the garden, the majority will say “the forbidden tree.” Few will say “the tree of life.” I know that it is human nature that we tend to focus on things that we are not allowed to do. But the proper attitude is not to dwell on “why cannot I?” The proper attitude is to ask for a reasonable answer from the person who knows better. Eve apparently walked so many times around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that it had become the “middle of the garden” to her. The translators were correct in capturing her mentality when they translated “tavek” as “the middle” of the garden in Gen 3:3. To Eve, that forbidden tree had become the “central question” of her life.
God did not tell Adam whether he could or could not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But when the Tempter asked Eve what God had said, she replied, “God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it’.” To touch the fruit is half way to the eating of the fruit. So it is obvious that when Eve heard that she could not eat that fruit, she asked herself, “What if I do not eat it; can I at least touch it?” Again we can say that it is human nature that we want to get as close to the edge as possible. But an inquisitive child can still be a good child. The child can ask her parent why certain activities are dangerous. She does not have to climb to the edge just to show that she is “not really doing it yet.”
God also told Adam that “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” But Eve dropped the word “surely.” Some people may argue that Adam and Eve had not seen death; therefore, the word “die” had no meaning to them and that Eve could not have taken “death” seriously. But Eve’s response to the Tempter showed that she knew the meaning of “die”; she knew it was a bad result. But a bad result apparently did not deter her. She was asking “why not” in spite of the fact that she knew what God had said about the consequence. She had been telling herself, “I am sure it is not that bad.” For that reason, the Tempter completed the temptation with “You surely will not die!” (Gen 3:4). The Tempter knew what Eve had been thinking.
The Serpent knew why that tree was forbidden. That tree was forbidden not because it was poisonous; it was not. Adam and Eve did not drop dead on eating the fruit. In fact Adam lived 930 years and had children after he ate the fruit. So the problem is not the eating of a fruit; the problem is what is going on inside the human heart that leads to the eating. That tree was chosen as a simple object in the garden where Adam and Eve could obey God without extraordinary effort. In contrast, to eat from that tree would require a disobedient heart and a conscious effort of rebellion. That was why God warned Adam, “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Sure enough, in the day that Adam and Eve ate, they became separated from God: it was a death far more severe than physical death.
The Tempter knew what Eve had been thinking. It was not hard to figure out. He just had to watch how she looked at that tree and how she walked around it day after day. She was asking herself, “Why is it that I have to listen to God all the time? Why cannot I decide for myself?” We all know those were the questions that Eve asked because we have been asking the same questions ourselves.
Although many people today deny that God exists, they know that human beings do not create themselves. In fact everyone will agree that the whole universe had existed long before we came into existence. Deep in our hearts we know that we should honor God as God. But deep inside we also have this question, “Why am I second class citizen all the time; why can I not be God at least for myself?”
The Tempter told Eve, “God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). In other words, the Temper was telling Eve that up to that point she had been blind; not physically blind, but blind to the fact that she could decide for herself what was right and what was wrong. How foolish she had been blindly following God all those days. To Eve’s ears, the Tempter was right: why cannot I decide for myself according to what I like?
It was God’s desire that mankind should be like Him. Gen 1:27 tells us that “God created man in His own image.” So what was wrong in Satan’s urging Eve to be “like God”? Here Satan was not talking about the attributes of God, such as the power He used to create the whole universe or the love with which He loved us. The Tempter was talking about what Eve wanted to hear: to decide for herself in the same absolute way God decides. If she wanted to eat that fruit, nobody could say she could not. So the more Eve looked at that fruit, the more she wondered why she had to obey God. Sure enough, Satan told her she did not have to; and Eve liked the answer.
One can ask whether Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit. Many people would say Adam and Eve did not have that knowledge. Their reason was: if Adam and Eve already knew what was good and what was evil, why would they be tempted to eat from that tree? These people have failed to notice that Adam and Eve had the knowledge because God had already told them what was acceptable and what was absolutely not acceptable. I know that many people think that good and evil are moral questions to be debated. But here in Genesis, things are not that complicated: if God said “no”, it was “no”, especially when there was only one “no”.
The issue is not whether Adam and Eve could decide what is good and what is evil. The issue is their point of reference. If they treat God as God, all they had to do was to decide the same way God had decided. The problem with Adam and Eve was that they rejected God as God and wanted to use their own wishes as the absolute point of reference. In other words, the real issue to Adam and Eve was not even the content of good or evil. The real issue was WHO gets to decide what is good and what is evil. Adam and Eve were not happy that it was always God who got to decide, even though all the decisions that God made were good for them.
Satan knew what was going on. So Satan told Eve that she did not have to let God be the boss all the time. He said, “You can be like God, in knowing what is good and what is evil.” Satan told Eve that she could use her own internal reference as knowledge to decide by herself what was good. With that simple suggestion, Eve indeed began to see that “the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise” (Gen 3:6). What a difference the world looks after a small suggestion. All that new information, nobody told her; Eve told herself.
So Eve ate the fruit and gave some to Adam. Adam was right there listening to the Tempter. He apparently had no objection to the Tempter’s suggestion or Eve’s offer. So he ate that fruit too. This interaction showed Satan how easy it is to separate mankind from God. And Satan has been using that method ever since. That method works every time because human beings all want to be “like God” in deciding for themselves what is good.
In conclusion, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not a tree to confer knowledge. It is a tree to show that knowledge about good and evil exists in this world. The knowledge of good and evil exists in this world because God has spoken. Good and evil can be reduced to a simple command of “you can eat every fruit, but do not eat that one.” In fact God’s commands are always simple and easy to follow. Even so, God gives us the freedom to choose. Man can obey God or rebel against Him. Eve thought that eating that fruit would make her wise. We now know that it had the opposite effect. We will be much wiser to follow God and live within the knowledge of good and evil that He has set for us.
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis attractive, for this reason, great excitement, irresistible, leaving the parents, woman
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
Many Christians say they believe in the Institution of Marriage but they do not know how to discuss this topic with their friends. I will share with you here what the Bible says and what it does not say about this topic.
The word “institution” is a negative word to most people; it implies enforcement. So try not to start your conversation with the word “institution”. Your listener may think you are talking about a mental institution. I know you mean to discuss the importance of having a proper ceremony for the wedding and getting your new status registered with the state officials. But even the concept of registration is not always positive. It reminds people of the DMV. So I would recommend that you start your conversation with, “I believe in the wisdom of marriage.”
Christians also need to avoid talking about “marriage” as if it is an exclusively religious activity. While it is true that marriage is a big deal in a religious person’s life and he wants God’s blessing on the marriage, the atheist wants to get married too. Even though the atheist asks for nobody’s blessing, not all atheists’ marriage end up in divorce. In fact some Christian divorces are as bitter as non-Christian divorces. So if we want to discuss the merits of marriage, we need to focus on the issue of marriage itself and not get mixed up with whether Christian marriages are better than non-Christian marriages.
Christians love their Bible. So they get comforted with Scriptures is quoted. However, not all quotations from the Bible are accurate, or even helpful. The issue to be discussed is not whether Christianity will improve one’s marriage; the non-Christian is not asking how to become a Christian in order to have a happier marriage. The issue most outsiders want to argue is what is marriage and why is getting married so important. In that kind of discussion, Christians need to use values that can be accepted by the other person. One can utilize Biblical concepts but should not quote chapters and verses. Quoting the Bible to someone who has not yielded to the authority of the Bible can be counterproductive for the discussion.
Even for people who have accepted the authority of the Bible, one should still be very careful to use the Bible only in a way consistent with what the Bible intends to say. Here I want to point out two verses that are very popular in Christian weddings but often misused. The first verse is Genesis 2:18, which says, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” That verse only points out the issue of Adam being alone. He would not be alone when Eve appeared. However, it was not necessarily a verse about marriage. But since most people think that Adam and Eve must have married, quoting this verse during a wedding seems highly appropriate.
The second verse that is perhaps even more popular is Genesis 2:24. It is often regarded as the verse supporting the “institution of marriage”. It says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Here the Bible appears to have described a protocol regarding marriage; therefore, if one needs a good Bible verse to support marriage as a Christian institution, this will be the verse.
The conventional interpretation of this verse is that God is telling every male person the importance of leaving the parents in order to officially start one’s married life. Although Adam had no biological parents, starting from him everyone else would have biological parents. So the mention of leaving one’s father and mother obviously means God wants every male to do the same thing as He had told Adam here. When applied today to the groom at the wedding, it means he needs to separate psychologically from his parents. In addition, after the wedding ceremony, the groom should actually leave his parents so that he can be joined with his bride to establish his own family.
Whether it is possible for a man to leave his parents and at the same time pay for his new household depends a lot on the economic status of the man. One should know, however, that even today parents in many countries still arrange marriage for their children. Married men bring their wife into the family; they do not leave their own family. Marriage is often a business transaction between families of matching wealth and social status. So Christians need to be careful in using Genesis 2:24 as a starting point to discuss the issue of marriage with someone from another culture.
Even with people who grow up in America, Genesis 2:24 is a difficult verse to discuss. The most intriguing point is that this verse starts with three very important words. The verse starts with “For this reason.” This is actually the first time God gave a reason for a human activity, so it must be important. If the Lord God gave us a reason, I think we should find out what that reason is.
We need to pay attention to the reason whenever someone gives a reason. The reason is: different people have different reasons when they ask us to do the same thing. For example, if your boss asks you to bring him a cup of coffee, it would be different from your wife asking you to bring her a cup of coffee. And a cup of coffee is not just about coffee. The person may have a different motive; he or she may want to see if you are paying attention, or willing to cooperate. So we need to find out what is the reason that Genesis 2:24 is referring to.
It is commonly understood that when a person says “for this reason, do that,” the reason is given before the action. So the reason for the activity described in Genesis 2:24 has to be provided somewhere before this verse. If we examine Genesis 2:23, indeed we will find one reason; but that reason already has its partner in action. Genesis 2:23 says, “She shall be called Woman” Why? “Because she was taken out of Man.” How Adam knew that Eve was “taken out of man” I do not know. But for sure, “Because she was taken out of Man” cannot be the reason why Adam had to leave his own father and his own mother when in fact he did not have parents.
So we need to look further back to Genesis 2:22. But that verse by itself does not seem to provide an answer to our question. There the Scriptures merely says, “The Lord God fashioned into a woman, the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
However, if we read Genesis 2:22 and 23 together, the picture becomes very clear. Genesis 2:23 begins with “The man said.” It is clear that Adam did not say it calmly and timidly. Adam was saying it out loud and in great excitement: The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Therefore, the reason why a man shall leave his father and his mother is not because God is issuing a mandate to Adam as if Adam was too timid to leave the household of his parents, which he did not have. The word “shall” is not a commandment here. It was a description of how excited a young man would become and how quickly and definitively he would leave everything behind to go after the love of his life.
For a young man, his father and his mother are the people that are closest to him and are the most supportive persons in his life. But what happens when he sees a girl? He does not have to be told, he will definitely (“shall”) leave both his father and his mother to go after the girl. The Bible says, “For this reason.” For what reason? For the reason that he has now found someone far more attractive and far more irresistible, compared to anything he had known in his life.
I know people will point out to me that Genesis 2:24 says that the man shall be joined to his “wife”. They will argue that Eve was not just some attractive young lady; she was meant to be Adam’s wife. However, if we study the original text, we will see that the original word in Hebrew for “wife” is “ishshah”; it is the same word used by Adam in Genesis 2:23 where it is translated as “woman.” No translator who wants to introduce the Bible into a new language will dare to use the word “woman” for Genesis 2:24. If Genesis 2:24 is translated as “a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his woman”, the folks that the translator is trying to reach may think that the Bible allows promiscuity. So it is entirely appropriate that the word “wife” is used in Genesis 2:24. For the same reason, it is appropriate that when Adam made his remark about Eve, all translators will translate “ishshah” into “woman” and not “wife”. Such culturally-sensitive approach to Bible translation is done all the time. In other words, Genesis 2:24 is not a description of a wedding ceremony. It is a description of the natural response of a young man when he sees a young girl. (And if you do not believe me, read Genesis 2:25.)
So, Genesis 2:24 is not about the institution of marriage. I do not know when Adam and Eve got married officially. There was apparently no exchange of rings that day, nor the signing of a certificate to be sent for record keeping by state officials. But Genesis 2:24 does provide the reason why marriage is important. If every young man will go crazy on seeing the first pretty girl, what is there to prevent him from going more crazy on seeing a more pretty girl? Every society understands this. That is why even the most remote jungle tribes have marriages; to make sure young men in society are under control and to make sure that babies born to marriages are taken care of by the parents.
Non-Christians will not give us a hard time if we can explain what we believe in a way that they can understand. While we may treasure our traditions, particularly traditions related to weddings, most people today will not accept any tradition as the truth simply because we say so. Even for traditions that are helpful, people still want to know why they are relevant today.
We believe that the Bible is relevant for every generation. We shall present what the Bible says with integrity. We will be careful not to use the Bible to support our own cultural ideals and economic models. The Bible’s focus in Genesis 2 and 3 was not about marriage, but about mankind’s self-absorption and his rebellion against the Creator. Let us stay true to what the Bible intends to tell us.
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis conduct Bible studies, God's instructions, language ability, marriage, naming the animals, support the family, the meaning of food
WHY ADAM NEEDED A WIFE
Non-Christians want to get married as much as Christians do. So getting married is not a Christian activity. In fact, people who have no religious affiliation may have more experience getting married than people who go to church; they keep getting married, divorced and married again. Therefore, Christians must not think that we have a monopoly on the business of holy matrimony.
There are many reasons why people get married. The most commonly quoted reasons are: (1) All normal people get married, (2) You will get lonesome if you do not have a spouse, (3) You want kids, don’t you? (4) Your parents want grandkids, (5) Your wife will cook for you and keep a clean house, (6) The Apostle Paul said it is better to get married than to burn [in lust] (I Cor 7:9).
While I strongly support the institution of marriage and I agree that the above reasons are valid for most people, I do not think they apply to Adam: (1) Although Adam was normal in the sense that he had the same hormones a male person would have, he had nobody around him to suggest that “all other people who are normal get married.” There was no peer pressure on Adam; he had not even seen a single woman yet. (2) As to the issue of loneliness, Adam had direct communication with God. It would be hard to argue that God’s presence would lead to loneliness or that discussions with God would be boring. Also, a lot of people grew up as a single child and never felt lonesome. On the other hand, for some unhappy people the presence of the spouse does not remove the feeling of loneliness.
The other social reasons also do not apply to Adam. While kids can add joy to a marriage, there are lots of marriages that do not produce kids. Also, there are lots of people making babies without getting married. So let us not confuse the issue of having children with the issue of getting married. In Adam’s case there were no parents around to remind him that he was “approaching age 30″, nor grandparents who were dying to see grandchildren. So why did Adam need a wife?
In the old days, men had to leave the house to go to work. So it fell on the women to do all the cooking and cleaning. Nowadays many couples both work; some wives earn more money than the husband does. With the poor economy, some husbands now stay home to cook for the wife. It is simply not true that starting with Eve, the duty of the woman is to serve the man. Moreover, there were plenty of fruits and edible vegetables around Adam and Eve. There was no house for Adam to leave “to go to work” or for Eve to clean. What exactly did Adam need a wife for?
The Bible actually gave us the reason why Adam needed a wife. We just have to understand the passage immediately following the part where God said that it was not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18). One should notice that God was not saying that it was not good for Adam to be lonesome, because the issue was not about loneliness. Adam was not lonesome. The issue was “being alone.” There was a big difference between being alone and being lonesome. To “solve” the issue of being alone God formed the animals and brought them to Adam. That action of course confused a lot of Christians because they were focused on God finding a partner for Adam to get married.
Conventional wisdom had no good explanation why God would bring animals to Adam and waited to see what names he would give them. One common speculation about God’s intention here was that He wanted Adam to show “man’s sovereignty over animals.” I do not think that explanation is a good one. Even today when we have all the biotechnology available, you can name a mosquito a mosquito; that does not mean that insect won’t bite you. If Adam’s act of naming the animals was a symbol of dominion over animals, it still did not explain why God wanted Adam to do it at this time. Moreover, calling Adam’s action a symbol is an open admission that Adam’s act was only a symbol; Adam had no real power over the animals that he had given names to. And if one tries to tie the concept of being a “master” to the concept of getting ready to be married, that would be even worse: it would definitely be a wrong way to
prepare a young man for marriage.
However, the act of giving names to animals proved the following facts: (1) Adam could understand concepts. What God said was an idea and the idea was not related to food. It showed that Adam had the ability to understand language involving a request for a specific act; (2) Adam could talk. He even had different sounds for the names he would give to different animals. He had the capacity to link a sound to a specific object for later reference. Therefore, before Eve was even created, God had shown Adam that Adam could communicate and that the ideas that came from his brain would be accepted by God.
The next act that God did was remarkable. Before God removed a rib from Adam, He personally gave Adam a general anesthesia. For the record, the practice of anesthesia in the history of the world preceded the practice of surgery. General anesthesia was completely appropriate; a local anesthesia would be too painful and spinal anesthesia would be too traumatic for this young man. Using a rib was also a good choice because unlike other bones, missing a rib does not inhibit function; Adam could move around and would not know what he missed.
The Lord God then used the rib and “fashioned [it] into a woman” (Gen 2:22). Even though Adam had no idea that God had removed a rib from him, he shouted with joy when he saw Eve. He said with great excitement that “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Isn’t it amazing how a man can compose poetry without thinking about it when he meets the love of his life? So now, Adam not only could talk, he could utter poetry.
Summing up the data so far revealed in the Bible, I conclude that the main reason why God gave Adam a wife is for the purpose of meaningful communication. It would be communication not just about getting food, but the “meaning of food.” Adam now had someone to talk to who was at his own level, who could understand or misunderstand him, and who could talk back.
Insecure people often regard someone talking back to them as a challenge to their own ideas or even an insult. That kind of reaction, however, is totally not necessary. A difference of opinion is simply another opinion reflecting the viewpoint of a person who sees the same thing from a different angle. If everybody agrees, we do not need to talk. If everyone thinks the same way we will have no need for leadership. We will all stop thinking and no one will know if one idea is better than another.
As to what Adam should be talking to Eve about, I think the strongest suggestion is that he should talk to her about what the Lord God had said. Obviously he told her about God’s instructions, but he did not do a very good job. Eve knew what God had said: when she was tempted, she told the Tempter, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat” (Gen 3:2). However, when it came to the only fruit which she was not supposed to eat, she said, “but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” So this young woman added the phrase “do not touch.” The part about “do not touch” revealed her thoughts before the Tempter even asked. She had been thinking, “If I cannot eat the fruit, can I at least touch it?” That revealed the fact that human rebelliousness was there even before the Temper tempted a person. The Temper did not drag her into sin. She willingly walked right to the edge. All the Temper had to do was to nudge her over.
I will never know whether Adam wanted to “touch that fruit” also. Had he discussed the issue with Eve and had he stood firm on God’s command, he would have told his woman, “Don’t even think about it.” He might even put it in stronger terms, “No, absolutely not.” Judging from what happened next, that conversation apparently did not take place.
In conclusion, I think all husbands should conduct Bible studies with their wife. Let him state what the Lord had said and let her ask all the difficult questions. If he is not sure of the answer, he should search the Scriptures even more diligently. Of course the woman can search the Bible herself. But that would not be helping the husband. Eve was supposed to be a helpmate suitable for Adam. Her job was to help Adam clarify in his mind what God wanted both of them to do. I think that is still the job of the wife even today; that is one good reason why God put the wife there for the man.
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis ability to talk, alone, companion, helper, language, loneliness, marriage, suitable, talk back, Tarzan and Jane
THE PROBLEM OF BEING ALONE
I have attended many Christian weddings where the preacher would quote Genesis 2:18 as the reason why a man needs to be married: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’ ” However, if you read the passage, you will find that the issue is not about getting married. The issue is about “being alone.”
While I wish every man who wants to be married would find the right woman to be happily married to, I do not want the Christian public to be confused about the issue raised in the Bible. Here I will propose one way to examine the issue that is most consistent with the picture provided in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. At the end I hope you will agree with me that God has given us tools to overcome the problem associated with being alone. You will see that it has very little to do with getting married. Being alone and not getting married are really separate matters.
The topic discussed in Genesis 2:18 is being alone, not being lonesome. Many people can be alone and not feel lonesome at all. For example, a person can spend an afternoon alone in a forest to enjoy the tranquility there and not miss any of his usual human contacts. On the other hand, there are lots of people who feel terribly lonesome even when surrounded by so-called friends and family, especially during festive seasons such as Christmas. Adam had God as a constant companion and he had work to do, to cultivate and to keep the garden. He was not lonesome. According to the Bible, his issue was being alone.
It is interesting to note that this was perhaps the first time God would say “not good” regarding any aspect of His creation on earth. In Genesis 1:25, we read that after God had introduced all kinds of beasts, including large animals and everything that creeps on the ground, God saw that “it was good.” Here God looked at the situation with Adam and He said that it was “not good.” So being alone is not a trivial problem.
On hearing God announce through the Scriptures that “it is not good” for Adam to be alone, we ought to ask right away, “God, You are with Adam; how can he be alone?” Or we can say, “God, You are all powerful; make Adam happy.” Obviously those are our perspectives, and they reflect a set of viewpoint different from what God intends to reveal in the passage. We need to discover what God meant when He said it was not good for Adam to be alone.
God’s solution to Adam’s being alone reveals the nature of the problem. God’s solution was not to spend more time with Adam and thereby to become Adam’s companion 24/7. Rather, God’s solution was to “make him a helper suitable for him.” Therefore, the issue of being alone is not just the lack of another being nearby. The issue is having someone “suitable for him.” God being the Father-figure here, deemed Himself “not suitable for Adam,” and God was right.
If God was all caring and all powerful, how could He not be “suitable” for Adam? The answer is obvious: to be suitable, that new entity had to be at the same level with Adam. That means the new entity could not be all-powerful and all-dominating. That immediately implies that the new entity would be weak and even capable of making minor mistakes, to provide opportunity for Adam to find out what human beings are all about.
Conventionally people think of a “helper” as the less capable partner in a relationship. So a helper is not the chef, but someone who can only cut up the vegetables. Or a helper is someone who cleans the room after the real artist has finished his master piece of the day. For movie lovers, it would be, “Me Tarzan, you Jane.” That kind of arrangement obviously fits well into a male-dominated world. And since most brides have no intention of outshining the groom anytime soon anyway, the reading of this passage during wedding ceremonies cements the popular image that the woman is to serve the man.
How the bride is to be the helper to the groom is often assumed during a wedding ceremony and afterwards. Besides the conventional expectations of keeping a clean house and cooking for the husband, a major duty would be the making of babies. However, if you think that is what the Bible teaches here in Genesis, you will be most surprised.
Immediately after God said that it was not good for the man to be alone and that He would make a helper suitable for him, the Bible recorded the following rather curious passage. Genesis 2:19 informs us that “the Lord God formed every beast of the field. . . every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.” This passage should alert us that our conventional thinking needs to be adjusted. If we follow the thinking revealed in the Scriptures, we cannot link “a helper suitable for him” with the keeping of a clean house or cooking food for the husband, far less the making of babies. The passage that followed dealt with a different topic: it was about talking.
The passage in Genesis 2:19 is about human speech. So far, God had done all the talking. In Genesis 1:4, we read that “God saw that the light was good” and then we find that in Genesis 1:5, “God called the light day.” God even called the darkness night. Now God wanted a demonstration from Adam that Adam could understand what God said and that he could do what God had commanded. And indeed Adam was able to do that, with ease. After that event, there was no question that Adam not only could listen to language, he could use language to talk too, which was an absolute requirement if one were to move away from the problem of being alone.
Speech is such a common human trait that most people fail to notice that we are the only species on earth endowed with the ability of true language. No other species on earth would have understood what God said on that day, and none would perceive meaning in the naming of things, far less the actual ability to name other animals. Yes, monkeys can communicate: they can jump up and down in trees to indicate a tiger is approaching. But they cannot talk: they do not have the anatomical structure (the larynx) to talk. More importantly, they do not have the proper wiring in their brains. Monkeys cannot rally other monkeys to encourage them. They cannot say, “Don’t be afraid. That tiger ate your father. Let us surround him and throw rocks at that evil tiger.” Even the so-called sign-language that some chimps are supposed to have learned from human trainers is not really a language; it is some hand signal the chimps learned to get food from the trainers. Without food, not a single chimp would be trained. The chimps also do not teach their own offspring the use of the so-called sign language, and no male chimp has ever been observed to use sign-language to say to his lady, “This is your banana, you eat first.” So language is a big deal in the animal world, but we are the only ones who have it.
I do not know what language God used to talk to Adam. It does not matter. Adam understood the concept. He did not question the meaning of the request. He did not say, “This exercise will not bring me food, why should I do it?” God also did not ask Adam to repeat after Him, as animal trainers always need to, to train an ape, or a bird. God was waiting to see what Adam would call these animals. So, true language is not just the imitation of sound, as parrots are quite capable of doing. It is the expression of ideas that come from inside the brain.
The Bible provides plenty of hints that our God has His own personality, including a sense of humor. In Genesis we see clearly God’s unique way of getting Adam started. While God could do everything, he wanted Adam to know that a man was allowed to have his own ideas. That was illustrated by the fact that Adam was allowed to name each animal according to his own will and the names would be acceptable to God without question. Only after Adam had demonstrated the ability to exert his will would God create Eve.
Eve was indeed a helper suitable for Adam. We will see that Eve was by no means a lesser partner in the relationship. She could talk and she could initiate events. In fact her ideas might not be the best for Adam or herself, which meant Adam needed to stand firm and express what he knew to be God’s command. Eve had the full capacity to talk back when Adam tried to say, “This is what God has said.” In explaining to Eve what God wanted, Adam might have gained a better understanding or conviction of God’s will for them in the garden.
It was not good that Adam was alone without another human being around to be responsible for and to interact with. God would be there providing companionship for Adam even if Eve was never created. But the feeling Adam would have talking to God was not the same feeling he would have talking to Eve. People’s inner thoughts came out when they talked as equals or even argued with each other. Only when there was a difference of opinion could comparisons be made and life enriched.
We will never know at what time Adam and Eve became officially married, but we do know that Adam talked a lot as soon as he saw Eve. In talking we reveal what is important to us and that is perhaps why God made sure that there was a person suitable for Adam to talk to freely. By creating Eve, God solved Adam’s problem of being alone. We shall see how well the couple appreciated God’s effort in making life whole for them.
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis causing tree to grow, God planted, insecticide, participation in God's world, to cultivate and to keep
CULTIVATION
The first instruction God gave to Adam was to cultivate and to keep the garden (Gen 2: 15). Many people have asked what that instruction means and whether it applies only to Adam or to all mankind.
The meaning of “to cultivate and to keep” can be found from what God had done prior to His giving the tasks to Adam: (a) Genesis 2:8 says, “The Lord God planted a garden.” This means the Lord God had chosen the species to be grown and put the young trees into the soil; the overall scheme of which plant would grow up in what location had become fixed. (b) Genesis 2:9 then says, “Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree. . . ” That means God made sure that the young trees would continue to grow until there were fruits. The description of the trees on this particular day was only that every tree was “pleasing to the sight and good for food.” Conventional teaching would say that the fruits were already on the trees. But Genesis 2:9 did not mention the fruits, it described only the trees. The fruits were only implied in the text. It would take more than a day before the trees would be mature enough to yield fruits. Eventually all the trees would have fruits, but that would be the resulting of God’s “causing” every tree to grow.
Taking a hint from the actions of God, the instruction to Adam would mean the following: (a) Decide what kind of tree and where you would plant the tree. In other words, make an overall plan and do not haphazardly plant whatever comes to your mind. That would be the “cultivate” part of the command. (b) After the trees are planted, do not leave them unattended; make sure every tree can grow up. That would be the “keeping” part of the command. In other words, take care of all the individual components of the plan faithfully until the whole plan is mature and the desired results are achieved.
The Bible did not tell us why God wanted Adam to cultivate and to keep the garden. One thing was clear, however. It was not because Adam lacked food; Adam was surrounded by food. Specifically, on Day Six when Eve was also present, God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed. . . , and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you” (Genesis 1:29). In other words, Adam’s diet was not exclusively fruits. He could eat other plants. So on the first day of Adam’s life before the fruit trees had yield fruits, Adam already had food.
If Adam was surrounded with food from the very beginning, the reason “to cultivate and to keep” must go beyond the need for food. Here the description of Genesis 2:10-14 was helpful. It described several rivers and the precious stones that were there. There was gold, bdellium and onyx. There was no need for money at that time, so the gold was good for decoration. Bdellium is an aromatic gum like myrrh. Onyx is a form of quartz that has a wide range of colors. In other words, there was plenty of pretty material to make artful objects.
When we put all the information together, it became clear that God’s intention for Adam was not just to grow food. He wanted man to participate in the world that He had created. He wanted to see what kind of a world man would build for himself when given the chance. And God was always there to talk to Adam if he wanted feedbacks.
Even today, God wants us to use our brains to make good plans. He wants us to execute our ideas and see how our input would add to the wonderful world that He has already started. The need to use our God-given intelligence is not only true when we are free to rearrange our surroundings, as was the case when Adam was the only farmer. The need to think though a plan is even more important when there are others around us. We need to think not only our own wishes, but of the needs of others around us as well.
Let me tell you now the story of a Chinese graduate that I met a few years ago. It really illustrates how people need to work together intelligently and how kind considerations for one’s neighbor may make a difference. This young man was a little more than twenty years old when I met him. He graduated from the University of California, Davis, with a degree specializing in plant biology. His ambition was to teach poor farmers how to grow cash crops. He did not see himself as a missionary in the conventional sense. He simply wanted to use what he had learned in college to help poor farmers in less developed countries.
The farmland that was his mission field was poor. There was only one decent building in the village, which belonged to the village chief. The farmers there all grew the same crops because their parents had been doing that since the very beginning of the village. Everybody harvested the same crops at the same time and brought the same produce to the market in the closest city. So the price was always low. While in most parts of the world the price of produce is advertised as “so many dollars a pound”, the habit of both buyers and sellers at this market was such that no one would ask for the “price per catty (or “jin”, equivalent to 1.33 pound)” of the produce. The farmers advertised the price by the reverse ratio, by so many catties per yuan. (It would be like our saying “so many pounds of vegetables per dollar.”) The produce were so cheap that customer would typically put down only one yuan (about
15 U.S. cents) and took home whatever weight of produce the farmer was willing to sell it at. Obviously there was no thriving economy there.
The village had a well, but it was far away from the field. There was no irrigation system. Most of the farmers depended on rain to water the crops. When there was no rain, everyone starved. When it rained, it drowned everything; everyone stayed home to play mahjong. In a year that the weather was perfect, there would be an abundance of crops for every family, which meant the price would be particularly low and the farmers had to sell the produce to the city folks at a price below the cost of production.
So my missionary friend persuaded some of the farmers to grow crops different from their neighbor’s. But the new crops would not grow without fertilizer. So my friend paid for the fertilizers. With an abundance of food in the plot cultivated by the more adventurous farmers, the insects were having a great time. They came and ate up the whole new crop.
So my missionary friend bought insecticides. What happened was predictable. When insecticide was used, the insects moved over to the neighboring plots where the farmer had only begun to use fertilizer but had not learned to use insecticide. So the other farmer’s crop was destroyed while his more advanced neighbor was doing well.
With some farmers doing better than others, there were a lot of unpleasant exchanges even among previously friendly neighbors. One would think that the village chief would come out to help settle disputes. That, unfortunately, was not the case. The village chief soon expected the more productive farmers to pay more to support his own life style, and that caused a whole new set of problems. At that point of the story I did not know to laugh with my friend or cry with him. That is the world some men would build when given the chance to exercise their free will.
I will never know if Adam made any efforts to cultivate and to keep the garden. All I know is that he messed up soon after God told him to work. Just like what my well-meaning friend had discovered, the problem is not the lack of technology. The problem is man’s spiritual condition, which cannot be solved by technology.
So let me conclude by asking myself and you too. What kind of a world would you and I build if we never have to work for food and there is no lack of building material around us? Would we be walking with God and let Him be our partner, to consult and to enjoy, as we go about trying to cultivate and to keep God’s garden?
Richard
Mar 03
adminGenesis decisions, environment, food, honoring God, identity, to cultivate, to keep
THE MEANING OF WORK
Most parents say that they go to work in order to feed the children. That gives the impression that the main reason for working — if not the only reason for working — is to get food for the family. Does that mean, then, that if one has plenty of food, one need not work? In that case, millionaires who can buy more food than they can ever consume would have no urge to work. That, of course, is not true; many wealthy people work harder than their less wealthy neighbors.
Men seem to get their identity from work. The Bible tells us why that is the case. Fundamentally, men work because God works. Men build things because mankind was made in the image of God. After God made Adam, the Bible tells us, “The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” Think about it: God Himself planted a garden. God the Creator would labor as a gardener. Surely it was not for the purpose of earning a few dollars. God did it for a different purpose: He wanted to fashion a place suitable for His latest creation Adam to live there. He did it more than just to provide food for Adam. God worked to set an example for Adam.
Some people may object to the notion that God would do any work at all, let alone work as a gardener. However, we need to be open-minded. If God wanted to show us by example the real meaning of work, we must not reject His demonstration. Just because some of us dislike work does not mean God dislikes work. We need to be willing to hear what God wanted to teach us.
The interesting fact about work in the Bible is that it tells us that after God placed Adam in the Garden, God did some more work: “Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food.” Here the Bible used the word “caused.” The two separate descriptions mean that God did the project in at least two steps. (1) “He planted the Garden.” Many of us have a similar experience. We plant fruit trees when they are young, before they have fruits. Then we water them and make sure they have enough nutrients. From the description of Genesis, it seems that was what God did. If the Garden were completed in one step, there would be no need to do any more work. However, the Bible followed with a second idea: (2) “He caused the trees to grow and bear fruit.” That means things did not happen instantly and effortlessly. He caused the trees to grow and bear fruit: God spent more time and effort on the trees after He planted them.
From the description in Genesis, we can see that work is not just labor for the purpose of earning money or for survival. Work, as revealed in Genesis, is self-expression. God worked because he wanted to. God worked because through His work He revealed something about Himself. God had no need for trees or their fruits, but God would take the time and effort to grow them, and He did it for Adam. That was God’s character. And I believe that was where how our parents got their instinct to feed and clothe us first, ahead of their own needs.
After God worked on the garden, He instructed Adam to do the same. We need to pay attention to that instruction because it is the first instruction from God to mankind. Gen 2:15 tells us the nature of work for mankind. The verse starts with a repetition of how God put Adam in the garden. But this time, the Bible points out the purpose of work for mankind: Adam’s job is to cultivate the land and to keep it.
Here we are told the two major objectives of human efforts on earth. The first objective is to cultivate the land. That does not mean the mere turning of the soil; it means growing something out of the irrigated soil. It means the building of something where there was nothing previously. Interestingly, God did not micromanage Adam in the process. God did not tell Adam what to grow, where to grow, or when to grow on the land. So mankind can make decisions; and God has given His pre-approval to man’s decisions. That is very kind and trusting on God’s part; that is the foundation of man’s free will.
Free will means a person can make decisions. He is responsible for his decisions; he cannot blame anyone else for them. Sure, a person can be influenced by his environment. But regardless of how bad that environment may be, the person is still responsible for his own actions. A person is not obligated to follow the trend set by others. He can be a trend-setter. That kind of determination is clearly possible because not everyone born into a poor family becomes a thief. Many people who grow up in poor circumstances can in fact become upright citizens later. On this day when Adam was surrounded by “every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food” he really could not blame the environment. When Adam went astray later, it was also not because of poverty or a lack of information. It was Adam who chose to rebel; he alone was responsible for his sin.
Living in an environment filled with good food, however, has some drawbacks. If anything, Adam’s one problem may have been boredom. That is why God told him to grow something. It is more fun to eat of the fruits of one’s own labor. Honest work is good for the soul.
The second objective for Adam was to “keep” the land. This confirmed that free will had limits. Free will did not mean “anything goes.” Adam was not the master of the universe; he was not allowed to burn down the garden. Adam was only free to decide how to cultivate the land; he was not free to “not cultivate” the land. Indeed, at no time at all was he allowed to abuse the land. Free will is to be exercised within the boundaries that God has set for us.
So in conclusion, the purpose of work is not just to find food or to indulge in the accumulation of food. Even when we have plenty of food we will still have the urge to do work and our work will reveal who we are. For Adam, he could have chosen to walk with God and made it his priority to obey God. Unfortunately He chose to rebel. Once the relationship with God was broken, his life had no meaning. He worked just to survive. I hope we do not repeat Adam’s mistake. Our life will have meaning only when we have a restored relationship with God. May we walk everyday with Him and work to honor Him.
Richard
Older Entries
RSS