Codex Theophilus

Spiritual Gifts: Analyzing the Diverse gifts. (1 Corinth 12:4ff).

2011-03-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

Analyzing the Diverse gifts. (12:4ff).

Word of wisdom (logos sophias) and word of knowledge(logos gnoseos) (1Corinth 12:8): These gifts are commonly thought to be the ability to receive a special revelation from the Holy Spirit and on that basis to speak words that give wisdom in a situation or give knowledge of a situation in the life of someone present in the congregation. The other interpretation of these gifts would see them as more “non miraculous” or” ordinary: the “word of wisdom” simply means the ability to speak with knowledge about situation. Contrary to that ,according to James G.S.S Thompsom, Word of Wisdom is a miraculous gift which function in such a way that this gift would communicate ability to receive and explain “deep things of God”(Rom: 11:33).

Some find it hard to distinguish these two gifts; Paul W Marsh postulate that word of wisdom is not easily distinguished from word of knowledge. He asserts that the later indicates an intelligent grasp of Christian principles and facts, the former expresses an understanding of their application, a spiritual insight into the principles. However, both the interpretations have a weakness. In case of the first interpretation, it can be similar to prophecy while the later interpretation also has it Achilles heels as the entire gifts mentioned by Paul are all miraculous gift. Another weakness in the later interpretation is that it means that only some people have the gift to understand Christian principle and facts as not everyone are endow with these gifts. Another alternative is that these two gifts might be related to teaching as in every other list the gift of teaching is mentioned, but it is lacking here –unless wisdom and knowledge refer to teaching.

Working of Miracles ( 1 Cor.12:10,28-29). “Miracles” is the rendering of “dynamies” (power). In Acts “dynameis” refers to the casting out of evil spirits and the healing of bodily ailments (8:6-7, 13; 19:11-12). This may explain “working of powers,” but this is not synonymous with “gifts of healing.” Probably the former was much more spectacular than the latter, and may have signified raising the dead (Acts 9:36-42;20 :9-12). Paul himself exercised this gifts of working of powers, and it was for him proof of his apostleship (2 cor.12:12) and authenticated both the good news he preached and his right to proclaim it (Rom 15:18-21). According to Paul Enn a distinction should be made between Miracles and the gift of miracles. although the gifts of the miracles- the ability of an individual to perform miraculous acts ceased with the apostolic age, that is not to say miracles cannot and do not occur today. God may directly answer the prayer of a believer and perform a miracle in his life. However, Wayne Grudem profusely argue against such view, according to him what Paul is speaking about in 1 cor. 13:10 is the total and final abolition of these gifts that it to be brought about by the divine initiative at the return of Christ. Until the time of the return of Christ these gifts will at least to some extent remain available for use, and the Holy Spirit will continue to distribute these gifts to people.

Gifts of Healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30). As already suggested, gifts of healing resembled “working of miracles” (powers).witness the ministry of our Lord (Matt. 4:23-24), of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1), and of the seventy (Luke 10:8-9). Gifts of healing were also prominent in the church after Pentecost (Acts 15: 1-16; cf. also James: 14-1). “Gifts” (plural) indicates the great variety of both the sicknesses healed and the means used in the healings. The person who exercised the gift and the patient who was healed had one essential in common-faith in God. The writings of the church fathers show that “gifts of healing” were exercised in the church centuries after the apostolic period. Today there are recognized branches of the church which believe that there are beginning to reappear. However, according to Charles Webb Carter, these gifts of healing may involve much more than direct divine intervention, important as that is. that there are Christian men and women whose natural aptitude better qualify them for specific branches of medical science and service than their fellow is evident .Christian doctors, nurses, counselors, and psychiatrists exercise their gifts by “ the one Spirit” who endows ministers to preach or teachers to teach.

Gift of Prophecy. The hardest gifts to define are probably prophecy and tongues. Some thinks of 1 Corinthian 14:24-25, where the words of prophecy reveal the secrets of the heart and cause the visitor to acknowledge God’s presence. Or in 1 Corinthians 14:3 prophecy results in edification, encouragement and consolation. But this verse hardly helps us define the gift of prophecy, for all gifts rightly used would edify, encourage and console. Such results are not the exclusive province of prophecy. According to Hans Conzelmann, gift of prophecy does not disclose the future, but what is hidden within a man (Human) (1 cor. 14.2). However according to Charles webb carter, it is related to preaching, he quoted Peter, Paul, Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, and Graham as a few examples of those who are endowed with this gift. Contrary to all these views Craig Blomberg argued that, in the New Testament, Agabus exemplifies a prophet who can predict the future (Acts 11;27-30;21:10-11;cf. John as a seer in Rev 1;1-4). Other individuals called prophets include Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1). Quoting Joel’s prediction that prophecy will characterize “ the last days”, the entire New Testament Age , God will bestow this gift on many of his people irrespective of gender, age, or social class ( Acts 2:17-21;for additional examples, see Acts 19:6-21:9). Holding a very similar view, Thomas R .Schreiner stated that Prophecy is better defined as communicating revelations from God in a spontaneous utterance. He argued that the close relationship between prophecy and revelation is cemented in Corinthians 14:29-33. Paul mandates how the gifts should be exercised in these verses. I Corinthians 14:30 is especially instructive since it describes prophecy in terms of a revelation granted suddenly to one who is sitting down: “But if revelation is given to one sitting, the first one should be silent” The notion that prophecy involves spontaneous revelations is also confirmed, for the revelation comes to a person while he or she is sitting in the assembly. Paul W Marsh however believe that both preaching and foretelling can be included here though he did not give primacy to foretelling, at the same time did not exempt it.

Discernment of the spirits (diakriseis pneumaton 1 Cor 12:10) fits nicely after discussion of prophecy, and it immediately follows prophecy in the list in 1 Cor 12:10. We have seen that prophecies were judged and evaluated (1 Cor 14; 1 Thess 5: 19-22). Those who had the gift of distinguishing spirits were able to discern whether the prophecies and interpreted tongues were truly from God. Such a gift was practical for the community indeed, since many false prophets threatened the young churches. William Barclay wrote, “In a society where the atmosphere was tense and where all kinds of manifestations were normal, it was necessary to distinguish between what was real and what was merely hysterical, between what came from God and what came from the devil”.

Gift of Tongues: Not used in English before 1897, the technical term glossolalia derives from glosais lalein, a Greek phrase used in the NT meaning literally “to speak in (or “with” or “by”) tongues. Both Luke and Paul regarded glossolalia as charismatic praise in language unknown to the speaker. Schreiner believe that there is no compelling evidence that Acts 1 and 1 Corinthians refer to two different gifts of tongue , as in 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 Paul agrees that tongues speaking is no longer a mystery if an interpreter can translate what is being said. The nature of these gifts is explained in 1 cor.14 which is as follows:

(a) The tongue in which the person spoke was unintelligible and therefore unedifying to the Christian assembly (v 2-4).

(b) The tongue (Glossa) was not a foreign language (vv.10-12).

(c) The tongue speaker addressed himself to God to whom he probably offered prayer and praise (vv 14-17);

(d) The tongue edified the speaker (vv 4)

(e) The tongue speaker loss control of the intellectual faculties (vv 14-15).

Gift of interpretation of Tongues: Gift of interpretation of tongues (1Cor. 12:10, 30) was a necessary corollary as to speaking in tongues, as was “discerning of spirits” to the Prophet’s speaking by revelation. The tongue speaker might also exercise the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 14:13), but usually others exercised it (vs. 26-28; 12:10). This gift is crucial as in the absence of it; simply babbling in the church doesn’t make any sense to anybody. If outsiders come to the assembly and hear only tongues they would naturally identify the church one more form of a Hellenistic cult involving mantic prophecy; they would say, “you are raving (mainesthe).” But if they hear prophecy, they would be moved to say, “God is among you” (14:25). The plural kinds points to considerable variation within this experience. while some speakers could also interpret (14:, 5,13)

The Gift of “Faith” (1Cor 12:9). Not saving faith in general, which is the common endowment of all Christians, but wonder-working faith? In 1 Cor 13:2 Paul speaks of faith that moves mountains, and thus the gift of faith likely relates to a faith that believes that God can do the extraordinary. This can be confirmed by James 5:15, where the prayer of faith may be the conviction that God will heal the sick. It is also believe that the Spirit’s gift of faith could effect might things (Matt. 17:19f), and keep believers steadfast in persecution. In View of 13:2, the gift of faith presumably involves a distinctive ability to trust God to work in unusual ways or in particularly difficult situations.

Evaluation: All the gifts mentioned in chapter 12 are most probably supernatural, Paul was comparing them with there pagan past spiritual experience. Though with certainty one cannot say the actual functions of Word of wisdom and word of knowledge, contrary to Paul W. Marsh’s proposal, it cannot be the ability to understand principle and application, as the gifts are not given to everybody, otherwise in such case only some gifted people will have the ability while the rest without the gift will be rendered useless. Working of miracles and healing are most probably supernatural endowment as the apostles had performed many miracles ranging from raising the dead, healing; etc.Gift of prophecy is most probably a divine revelation, as Paul instructed the Corinthians to take turn in the church. Prophecy is not primarily confined to preaching. One can also see from 1 Thess 5: 20-21 and 1 John 4:1 which speaks profusely of the need for assessment. Criteria for evaluating purported prophecies would have included seeing if prediction came true (Deut 18:21-22) and presumably, testing the content of forth telling against already accepted (i.e scriptural) revelation. Whether or not a message edified the church was doubtless equally crucial. All believers must “test the spirits”, each church’s leadership must ultimately render a verdict on the legitimacy of any alleged prophecy. However, those revelations may not have a permanent significance and that may be the reason why so few prophecies are mentioned in the New Testament.

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to clearly explain all the gifts in detail as Paul did not explain all the functions and the nature of the gift. , one can say with certainty that they are a supernatural endowment, for instance as the description of faith in the 13 chapter, it is mountain moving faith. Then, in chap.14:2 Paul said that one who speaks in tongue speaks to God. He utters mystery with his Spirit. Then Paul mentioned the necessity to interpret so that it can edify the church. Thus, we can see that Paul is not merely referring to languages and their interpretations. But supernatural gifts. So all the gifts mentioned in chapter 12:4-10 refers to supernatural or miraculous.

Bibliography

Barclay, William .The Letters to the Corinthians. Edenburgh:The Saint Andrew
Press, 1954.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Gift of the Holy Spirit” in Baker Theological Dictionary of the
Bible, edited by Walter A.Elwell .Grand Rapids: Baker Books House
Company, 1996

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Bangalore: Theological
Publication in India, 2007.

Commentary on the whole Bible by Matthew Henry. Edited by Rev. Leslie .Michigan,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961

Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. New

York: Harper & Row, publisher, 1968.

Carter, Charles Webb. The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit: A Wesleyan
Perspective .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974.

Connor, Jerome Murphy o. “1 Corinthians” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Edited by Raymond E Brown et al .Bangalore: Theological Publications in India,
2007.
Davis, James A. “1-2 Corinthians” in Baker Commentary on the Bible.Edited by
Walter A. Elwell .GrandRapids, Michigan: BakerBooks, 1989.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1989.

Fee Gordon D. “ The First Epistle to the Corinthian” in The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned B. StoneHouse etal
GrandRapids,Michigan:William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company,1987.

Grosheide, F.W. Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians .London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, Ltd, 1953.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.
Secunderabad: OM Books, 1964.

Johnson, Luke Timothy .the Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation .Bangalore: Theological
Publications in India, 2009.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament .Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Lambrecht, Jan “1 Corinthians “in The International Bible Commentary. Edited by
William R. Farmer et all .Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1998.

Lea, Thomas D. The New Testament: its Background And Message .Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman &Holman Publishers, 1996.

Lenski, R.C.H, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians
Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing Hous,1937.

Mare, W.Harold “1 Corinthians” in The Expositors Bible Commentary.vol 10. Edited by
Walter C Kaiser.Jr et al (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1976.

Marsh, Paul w. “1 Corinthians “in New International Bible Commentary.Edited by
F.F Bruce. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979.

Marsh, Paul W. “1 Corinthian” in The New Layman’s Bible Commentary. Edited by
G.C.D.Howley et al .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapid, Michigan:
William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology.Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2003.

Splitter, R.P “Glossolalia” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal.
and Charistmatic Movements, edited by Stanley M.Burgess and Edward
M.Van Der Maas.Grand Rapid, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory: A Pauline Theology.
Secunderabad: OM Books, 2001.

Thomson,J.G.S.S. and W.A.Elwell ” Spiritual gifts” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology , edited by Walter A.Elwell .Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book
House Company, 1984.

Thompson, James G.S.S “Spiritual gifts” in Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology,
Edited by Everett F. Harrison & et al Grand Rapids, Michigan: Hendrickson
Plublishers, 1960.

Turner, Max .The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now .Great Britian:
Paternoster press, 1996.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol111: The Epistles of
Paul .Grand Rapid, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1946.

Vine, W.E Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol-III .London:
Pickering & Inglis Ltd, 1940.

Spiritual Gifts: Theological Principles

2011-03-08T07:35:00.000-08:00

Introduction: Spiritual gifts are the gifts of God enabling the Christian to perform his or her (sometimes specialized) service. Not every spiritual gift affected the moral life of the one who exercised it, but its purpose was always the edification of believers. The exercise of a spiritual gift implied service in the church. This practical approach is never lost sight of in the New Testament, these spiritual gifts often being divided into miraculous and non-miraculous.

There are several words in the New Testament used for spiritual gifts. “Dorea”and “Domata” are also used but are rare (Acts 11:17; Eph.4:8). Pnuematikas and charismata are frequently found, with charismata being the most common. The term charisma (spiritual gift) except for 1 peter 4:10, is used only by Paul. Charisma signifies redemption or salvation as the gift of God’s grace (Rom: 1; 6:23) and a gift enabling the Christian to perform his service in the church (1 Cor 7:7), as well as defining a special gift enabling a Christian to perform a particular ministry in the church (e.g., 12:28-31) . It seems likely therefore that even though at points the two words are nearly interchangeable ( as 12:31a and 14:1 would imply), the emphasis in each case reflects the root word (pnuema, Spirit; charis, grace). When the emphasis is on the gift, he speaks of charismata; when the emphasis is on the Spirit, he speaks of pnuematika.

Issues of the Spiritual Gifts.

The chapter (1 Corinth 12:1) begins with the word “peri de” (“now concerning”) and “brothers” and: sisters”. It shows that Paul does not want the Corinthians to remain uninformed concerning spiritual gifts (v1) the grammatical construction reminds the gentile Christians of their pagan practices: the present context suggests that enthusiastic, ecstatic rites and cultic meetings are referred to. At one stage, ecstasy had authenticated the pagan Corinthians’ worship of idols. (v2) apogomenoi (led astray) has the sense of leading away by force (Matt. 26: 57; 27:2, 31.)The agent is not specified, the suggestion is that of the domination of the power of evil. For Lenski the introductory phrase “peri” indicate that Paul is answering inquiries which had been addressed to him in the letter which the Corinthian has sent to him. In peri ton pneumatikon the genitive may be singular in 14:37, and denote persons, or neuter, like the accusative plural in 14:1, and denote gifts, the translation can be either “ concerning persons with spiritual gifts, “ or “ concerning spiritual gifts”. The latter is the NRSV rendition, then, reading through the chapter, one can see that, in the Corinthians’ use of their gift of speech, the attitude of elitism, rivalry, and individualism are painfully present .Paul discerned an egocentric competitiveness that was detrimental to church unity. Then, in 14:1-2 Paul criticisms of tongues indicates that Corinthians attached undue importance to this gift. The mysterious babble of unintelligible sounds was seen as the clearest sign of possession by the Spirit and so offered enhanced social prestige. And in consonant with the view of the ancient world, they considered such ecstatic babbling to be the highest manifestation of the spirit. The form of prophesy called mantic was particularly favored, it was thought to result from direct inspiration, a virtual possession of the psyche by the divine Spirit, leading to enthusiasmos, rapt in ecstasy, the prophetess or prophet cried out in unintelligible speech, such form of ecstasy was highly esteemed in the Hellenistic world.

The Corinthians ranked the gifts, declaring that the sign of a truly spiritual person (pneumatikos) was the manifestation of tongues (14:22). Then, he warns them first that not all “spiritual powers” are necessarily good. When they had been pagans, they also had been caught up in rapture (agomai), but had only resulted in their alienation (apogomai; 12:2). Paul tried to make them understand that the work of God’s Holy Spirit is to bring a Human being into relationship with the Lord, enabling him or her to say, “ Jesus is Lord:” (12:3). Apart from endangering the church unity, misused of the gifts also caused disorder in the church. Almost the whole 14 chapter is devoted on tongues as Paul tried to explain and lay down the principles and proper usage of this gift.

Theological Principle of the Gifts:

(1.) Edification: Gifts are for the common up building of the Church (v.7b) .These gifts were not given for the advantage of those who had them, but for the benefit of the church. Whatever gifts God confers on any man, he confers them that he may do well with them. They are a trust out into his hands. They are not given for show, but for service. By using the words diakoniai (serving) and energemata (workings), Paul indicates that such gifts were useful in serving the Christian community (vv. 5,6). The word “diakonia” does not exclusively denote the work of the church officers; it may denote every service to the good of the church. It is for the total good or profit (sympheron) of the Church.

(2) Unity in Diversity: Paul uses the image of the human body and its many members, probably borrowed from popular stoicism, to stress that diversity is necessary. Even the less presentable parts have an indispensable role. Such concept was also very much popular with the Romans, when the plebeians (the lower class in earlier Rome) had proposed revolt, the aristocrat Menius Agrippa convinced them that although they were less noticeable members (like the stomach), they were necessary; the upper and lower classes had different roles but equal importance. For Stoic, the universe was like the body, and God’s logo, or reason, was the mind or head that directed it. This figure is also used in the elsewhere (6:15; 10:17; 11:29) . For a body is not constituted of a single part, but for many. Thus the diversity among the parts of body is no cause for concern about membership or status in the body. In fact, “God has arranged the parts in the body “with though for the proper place and role but one body “(v.20). More over the unity of the body is not superficial but integral to its existence.

(3) Authentic gift: No person by the Spirit can curse Jesus; and positively, only by the Spirit can a person openly testify that Jesus is Lord (1Cor.12 v.3). The term Kyrio (Lord) is used by the LXX to translate Jehovah in the OT (cf. Matt 16:16; John 4:2, 3, 15). In this context Paul recognizes the deity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit in the use of the Phrases “Jesus is Lord” and “Spirit of God”. Anathema (translated “be cursed”) was, strictly speaking, something that was devoted to God and that could be thought of as given over to him with a view to its destruction. So, it could be thought as being “accursed” (cf. Josh 6:17, 18) the meaning is consistently used in the NT. It is equivalent to the Hebrew Word “ Harem”, the expression would most likely come from a Jew . Basic criterion for distinguishing Spirit-gifted people from imposters is whether they confess Jesus as Lord (vv.1-3) . Instruction on the usage of tongue is given in the fourteen chapter, Paul contends that every true prophet and spiritual person will recognize that what he has written is a command of the lord; and the person who does not recognize that is not to be recognized in the community (14:37-38)

(4).Superior Gift: Some believe that there are significant and insignificant gifts. However, many commentaries disagree with such interpretation. The list that follows is intended to be neither exhaustive nor hierarchical, but typical of the gifts that had been experienced at one time or another by Christians in Corinth. Out of the different gifts, much discussion is given on Tongues; however this does not necessary mean that it is superior over the other gifts. From 14:1-33 we discern that the gift of tongues, perhaps because it was most visible because it was the chief source of strife. Paul critiques the situation in certain ways. One needs to interpret the tongues, and consequently an additional gift of interpretation is required (14:13). Compared to tongues, there are more excellent gifts, e.g. Prophecy that builds up the church (14: 5). Most radically Paul urges seeking after love (agape), which is more important than any charism (13:1-13), whether speaking angelic tongues or prophecy, or miracles. However, Paul should not be misconstrued, he is not calling the Corinthian to abandon the gifts and pursue only love. But stress the futility of the gifts in the absence of love. The gift may be differentiated, but not on the basis of supposition about the degree of inspiration. Rather, those who are given ability (via God’s appointment) to serve and edify the body (3:15-15).

5. Origin of the gifts: The key stress in vv.4-11 lies in the existence of a great diversity of gifts that has the same origin. Strong emphasis is given on “the Spirit “and often repeated in these verses. In the threefold almost perfectly symmetrical composition of vv. 4-6 the variety of gifts, service and activities and their common “ trinitarian “ origin in the same spirit , the same lord and the same God are affirmed . Of God it is said by way of climax that God activates all activities in all Christians (v.6).

6. Divine Selectivity: Paul stresses the divine selectivity. He is saying that not all believers function in each of the way listed. God selects individuals and gives them their specific gifts (v.28) One may seek and pray for certain gifts (12:31a; 14:1, 12) but God makes no guarantees that he will give any one particular gift as requested.

7. Order and Decency: Paul demands responsibility and maturity and thought (14:20) from the Corinthians. The prophets should control their utterance (14:32), speech (tongues) should be orderly and in turn (14:26-31), everything should be done with an eye for edification (14:26) but also “decently and in order”(14:40).

8. Supremacy of Love (13:1-13): it is hardly correct to refer to this chapter as a digression, providing as it does that cardinal Christian quality without which all the charismata are worthless. It is the essential link between the principle expounded in chapter 12 and the practice explained in chapter 14. the absence of love can be compensated by no other quality however spectacular, be it spiritual gifts or religious zeal (1-3) none can compensate for a lack of love (agape), the word “agape” found in LXX, Philo and other Greek literature, but thus far attested only once unambiguously in pagan Greek. In classical Greek its verbal and adjectival forms are used of contentment or affection, but to the exclusion of all sense of sexual passion. Taken up and invested in NT Greek with a new meaning and spiritual fervor it gained an exclusively Christian connotation. Paul stressed that the practice of love produced a lasting result.

Contemplation on Ecclesial Praxis of Holiness

2011-03-08T06:46:00.000-08:00

Few years after the atomic bomb devastated the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese Theologian, Kazoh Kitamori published his work “Theology of the pain of God.” He interprets the core of the gospel as the pain of God. Coming along the similar vein, Jurgenn Motlmann wrote, “The history of the divine pathos is embedded in this history of men [sic]” (The crucified God). Prior to them, it was Abraham Heschel who first described the prophet’s proclamation as “pathetic theology”. At first such theological advance was vehemently condemned, and was stigmatized as sacrilege or deviation from orthodoxy, as it appears to be in animosity with the traditional doctrine of impassible. Conversely, today as we look at the situation of the world around us, we see continuum exploitation, corruption, bigotry, moral degradation, economic systematic chaos, eco-crisis, gender bias, etc. Even as we gaze within the parameters of the Christendom, there are gigantic paradoxes of holiness rather than the practice of holiness, so in such bleak and poignant milieu, Christian should be made aware that the Creator did suffer. Note, the usage of term “suffer” or pathos of God should not baffle our mind as my usage here is an anthromorphic lingo rather than ontological or literal sense. Divine pathos cannot be compared with human pathos. My rendition is merely to delineate the notion that God is not an apathetic being. But, compassionate and caring Father. Here, the point of my argument is that the divine pathos is the repercussion of human failure to walk in Holiness. As we continue to reflect, let us approach the subject matter from the different stratas or facets of Holiness,

Eternal Transcendental Facet: In Isa 6:3, the seraphim cried “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts” God characteristic is vividly portrayed here. Not just one but emphatically thrice, the thrice repeated holy, a Hebrew idiom for the superlative, conveys the Israelites understanding of Yahweh as the most holy God. Some also postulates that it is more than attribute; but the very essence of Yahweh. The primordial deity “Yahweh” in the antique world revealed himself from the realm of the eternal to the realm of time. However, apart from theophanic revelation, due to the depravity of the first Adam, Yahweh stands aloof from humanity. At the burning bush He commands Moses to remove his sandals, as the place is a holy ground (Ex 3: 5). The people at Sinai were forbidden to touch the mountain. Holy of the Holies cannot be entered by the worshippers. Apostle Paul wrote that the fallen humanity fall short of his glory. In the ancient world, the Decalogue and the laws were given to obey, but outward action cannot infuse intrinsic Holiness. By the term “intrinsic Holiness”, I mean to say God standard of Holiness is not naive outward act but an absolute holiness, Jesus once condemned the heart full of lust. The Pharisee obeyed the law and they were zealous for it, yet Jesus called them white washed tomb full of bones as their inward motive was not right

Historical Immanental Facet: The Transcendental eternal deity became the immanent God, as the cosmic logos incarnated in the person of Jesus. Here, I am not drawing a line of demarcation between Jesulogy and Christology. The Cosmic Christ or logos alone without the works of the historical Jesus does not make any sense in the history of redemption. So extricating Christ from Jesus or Jesus from Christ is hollow approach. The word became flesh. With the incarnation of Christ the holy has become immanent and touchable. Christ became the progenitor of the new humanity. The true reflection of the original Human: an archetype “Adi Purusha”. In Christ we see the eternal transcendental God merging with humanity. Thus the immanent infuses the transcendental facet to the fallen humanity. There might be paucity in the word “infuse” however my usage here implies regeneration. Which also has a wider aspect; it is total transformation of the cosmo-theandric. As expounded by Paulose Mar Gregarous in the concept of Theosis,“ Theosis is not theoria, the vision of God, but the infinite and the continuous transfiguration of all creation, in proportion to the capacity of each being, into the God-bearing image of Glory.” Thus Transcendental God descending to humanity is not merely a Christian myth or idealism, but, historical phenomena where the immanence of God inaugurates a new creation in Christ. It is the Holy Descent. The Cross tells two stories, it the portrayal of the ultimate love (agape) and excruciating pain (pathos) of God.

Imperative Facet: After reflecting the two facets of holiness in the abovementioned paragraphs, at this juncture, it is pivotal to note that the former two facets are both indicative. First we see God’s attribute or essence in the first facet, then God’s act to humanity. These facets are indicative and foundational to the imperative.i.e. explicating the human actions called for in response. The attribute of God and His act to Humanity in the incarnation model (indicative) should not be merely embraced as a dogma, or a creed to recite or confess, rather the Christendom- the people of God are called out to reflect this divine attribute. Jesus audaciously said, “Be Holy as your Father in Heaven is Holy” (divine imperative). The indicative involves the affirmation of what the Holy God has done in inaugurating the new epoch of humanity. The veil that was torn at the time of the crucifixion depicts the bridging of the chasm between the Holy God and the fallen humanity. Christ salvific act infuse intrinsic holiness to the progeny of the first Adam. Thus, in Christ the offspring of the first Adam became the sons and daughters of Yahweh the Holy God. The imperative is both vertical and horizontal aspects of Holiness. Thus can be said, it is also a perpendicular facet as it is a command to reflect the vertical Yahweh’s Holiness horizontally towards the fellow being.

Concluding Reflection on Ecclesial praxis As a church, how often do we linger around the indicative without complying with the imperative? Quite often our keygma accentuate both indicative and imperative aspects, but the praxis is often bereft from our life. Jesus demands that there should not be discontinuity of the indicative, this is not say that same act is repeated again and again by the same agent, as in the immanental aspect , no on the other hand the continuity of the indicative can be seen when the imperative is put into praxis by the ecclesia in their demonstration of holiness. Secondly, before we conclude, why do churches often fail to comply with the imperative regardless of their cognizance of the inevitability? Prerequisite to our attempt to walk in holiness, it is important to remember, as mentioned earlier, Christ salvific act infuse intrinsic holiness, and such experience is made possible only with the anubhava of the resurrected Christ, and that through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In the first facet, we see Yahweh, then in the second facet Jesus Christ and in the third facet Holy Spirit. Thus here we see the involvement of the third person of the triune God which can never be exempted in the divine strategy as the three Godheads are always inextricably intertwine. The church without the Spirit will never achieve anything but rather digress to stagnation and dryness. In Bonhoeffer’s Christ formation: Christ has to from in us, likewise as Christ form in us, and then only a person can become holy. On the contrary, without such theosis experience , all our effort to walk in holiness will only be an extrinsic attempt of holiness, technically speaking which is not holiness at all but an outward attempt without the cross. Therefore as we conclude, as a called out people of God, surrounded by many cloud of witnesses, let the reminiscent of the divine pathos on the cross induce us to comply with the divine imperative as we reflect the Holiness of Yahweh in our life. Then people will recognize the church as truly unique from the rest of the world where darkness permeate.

The Uniqueness of Christ in Religious Pluralistic India.

2011-02-16T01:16:00.000-08:00

Introduction: The uniqueness of Jesus has been a hot topic of debate among the theologians till date. The issue of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is fundamental element of Christian belief, according to Ronald Rash and according to Bishop Newbigin; this issue is “the life and death question for the missionary”. Here, we will begin with the fundamental concept drawn from the Bible, and then proceed to the diverse concepts developed in multi-religious context.

Evangelical concept

There are two major unique aspects of Old Testament revelation combined in the uniqueness of Christ: the redemption through Israel and the uniqueness of Yahweh. Both lie at the core of biblical concept of mission. The New Testament exhibit Jesus the new Israel as the fulfillment of what was prognosticated in the Old Testament. The birth of Jesus is portrayed by bible as the right time or the fullness of time (Gal: 4:4).

1. Redemption through Israel: The Bible Portrays God’s redemptive answer to human predicaments (Gen 1-11) through the call of Abraham and the creation of Israel as God’s people. Through God’s covenant with Abraham, the blessing of God to all nations is also included (Gen 12:3).The Bible is clear that God’s action in and through Israel was unique. This does not mean that God was in no way involved in the histories of other nations. On the contrary, Israel boldly claimed that Yahweh was sovereign over all nations (Amos 9:7; Deut. 2:20-23; Exod.9:13-16; Isa.10:-19; Jer 27: -7; Isa. 44:28-4:13). It does mean that only in Israel did God work within the terms of covenant redemption, initiated and sustained by his grace (Amos 3:2;Deut .4:32-34;Ps.147:19f.; Isa. 43:8-13;Exod.19:f-6;20:26;Num.23:9;Deut. 7:6). Israel only existed because of God’s desire to redeem people from every nation. While God has every nation in view of his redemptive purpose, in no other nation did he act as he did in Israel, for the sake of the nations. Such phenomenon what Israel experienced of God’s revelation and redemption is not found in any other nations. It is worth noting that God did not choose all nations in the beginning but has a chosen nation-Israel for His redemptive purpose.
Then, the New Testament vividly portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s redemption highlighted in the Old Testament. Jesus is presented as the messiah –Christ. Jesus was Israel. That he is represented and personified Israel. The Messiah-Christ was the fulfillment of all that for which Israel had been placed in the world-God’s revelation and his work of Human redemption. Thus, Jesus shares in the uniqueness of Israel; in fact, He was the point and end of it. The paradox is that precisely through the narrowing down of God’s redemptive work to the unique particularity of the single man, Jesus, God opened the way to the universalizing of his redemptive grace to all nations, which was his purpose from the beginning. Paul ‘ mission theology to the gentile is the synthesis of the Old Testament “ mystery” of Israel existence for the nations and the significance of the gospel of Jesus’ messiahship (Gal. 3:14,26-29; Eph. 2:11-13; 3:4-60. The fulfillment of Israel’s historical particularity in Jesus was at the same time the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological universality. In this way the uniqueness is inseparable from the mission of God’s people.
2. Unique God: The Old Testament claim that Yahweh alone is truly and uniquely God (Deut. 4:32-40). This monotheistic thrust was not simply the singularity of deity, but rather sought to define God in terms of the nature, character, and actions of Yahweh (Isa. 4012-31; 43:10-12; 4:f’ 22-24). Yahweh is unique in character, and deity. The Old Testament Portrays that Yahweh would bring about redemption and judgment. And many of this text is ascribed to Jesus ( Isa. 3f:4ff; Matt.11:4-6; Ezek. 34; John 10:11’ 14; Matt. 22:41-46;Mal.2:1;4:f; Matt. 11:14) The implication was that, in the person of Jesus, Yahweh had indeed come, as the birth title “ Emmanuel” also signified to inaugurate the new age of his salvation and reign. Among different gods of the ancient time, Yahweh is unique and demanded worship from his chosen people. Thus, Jesus identified himself as the visible manifestation of the unique God-Yahweh.

The World Evangelical Fellowship Manila Declaration
To discuss this issue, Eighty-five evangelical theologians from 28 countries met in Manila, Philippines on June 1992. It was joint consultation sponsored by Asia Theological Association and the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship. Twenty Papers was presented on the Theme “the unique Christ in our Pluralistic World”. The uniqueness of Jesus with the following themes was affirmed in this meeting.
• The Unique Christ in our Pluralist of Religions.
• The Unique Christ as the Hope and Judge of the World.
• The Unique Christ in the Challenge of Modernity
• The Unique Christ and Political Ideologies
• The Unique Christ in the church Diversity and Unity
• The Unique Christ for peace and justice
Ecumenical, Roman Catholic and others
The question of Christ’s uniqueness in our pluralistic world, especially his universal Lordship, authority and supremacy has of late assumed prominence in missiological and theological debates. These debates are pointers to the fact that there has been a significant and dangerous shift away from the teaching of the New Testament and the apostles on the subject of the uniqueness of Christ. Leslie New begin in his new book, the gospel in a pluralist Society (1989), has clearly defined this shift and its effect on biblical and orthodox Christianity. Modern secularism, pluralism, humanisn, scientism and relativism have been responsible for this significant shift. Western Theology is often labeled as Exclusivist approach, due to the nature of ascribing other religion as pagan and condemning them as damned, as in the word of Bishop Cyprian of carthage, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church there is no salvation). As Hendricks Kraemer stated, missionary‘s sole aim is –to persuade the non Christian-world to surrender to Christ as the sole Lord of Life. Such view is considered as hostile and arrogant. Here, we will take a glimpse of how the uniqueness of Christ is approach in a multi-religious context like India.

Uniqueness in Christological Relativity: The approach of John Hick allows Christian to continue to adhere Christ as their unique savior without having to insist that he is necessarily unique and normative for others. Christ is unique for Christian not for others. This approach is based on his argument for universal salvation. Hindu are devoted to Krishna, Muslim call God Allah, and Christians find God in Christ. All worship the same God by different names. Hick argues that Christians do not have to believe that Jesus was God or second person of the Trinity in order to accept his teaching about the love of God. When Buddhists can accept and live by Gautama’s teachings and Muslim by the prophet Muhammad teachings, without believing that any of these great teachers was God incarnate. Hick attacks the traditional understanding of the doctrine of incarnation, saying that incarnation should be taken myth logically and metaphorically rather than literally. Holding a similar view Knitter admits that, “Jesus is unique, but with a uniqueness defined by its ability to relate to-that is, to include and be included by-other unique religious figures. He sees Jesus “not as exclusive or even normative, but Theo centric, as a revelation and salvation” New Trend in Pluralistic thinking leads to relativist position where every view has to be taken seriously.

Uniqueness in Christological Anonymity. According to Karl Rahner , The anonymous Christians are a Christian unawares. The difference between such a one and the explicit Christian is partly one of the subjective awareness (absent in the one, present the other) of “being a Christian”. “Anonymous Christianity” means that salvation in Jesus Christ is available to human persons, in whatever historical situation they find themselves, inasmuch as in a hidden way they open themselves to God’s self communication which culminates in the Christ-event. It further means that that mystery of salvation reaches out to them, not by a mere invisible action of the risen Lord but, in a mysterious manner, through the go-between action of the religious tradition to which they belong. There is an anonymous, or implicit, Christianity, then, and there is an explicit Christianity. Both are “Christian” despite the breath of the gap that keeps them apart. Anonymous Christianity, Rahner explains, is lived by the members of other religious traditions in the sincere practice of their own traditions. Christian salvation reaches out to them, anonymously, through these traditions. This affirmation is based on the social character of a person’s religious life, inseparable from the religious tradition and community in which it is lived.

Uniqueness in Christic or Cosmic Christology: Though it is difficult to locate the birth of twentieth century cosmic Christologies, it is easy to see that the background of the 1960’s was conducive to such a birth, particularly the Third Assembly of the World Council churches at New Delhi, 1961. Joseph sitter (Professor of theology at the University of Chicago) has used the phrase “cosmic Christ” in his address to the assembly “called to unity” and so is generally considered the originator of the idea. Taking Col. 1:1-20 as his basis where the word “ all “ is repeated at least six times. Sitter concludes that God’s redemption is not smaller than the repeated “all”, it is “cosmic in scope”. Today, many debates have been conducted as the theological validity of restricting the revealed messiah only to the person of Jesus of Nazareth needs a relevant clarification, “Is Only Jesus the Christ?” This idea has characterized liberal and especially Roman Catholic though ever since and is embodied in the documents of the vaitcans.II T.he mystery of Christ was present and active before it became incarnate in Jesus. The uniqueness is attributed to Christ or to the Christic mystery, but not to Jesus. According to S.J Samartha some Christology that claims God has been revealed to save humanity only in Jesus Christ and that to, once and for all in the first century, contradict a theology which affirms that God is the creator, sustainer and Redeemer of all humanity and that God’s love and justice embrace all people at all time? V Chakkarai observes that, “to believe that God is best defined by Christ is not to believe that God is confined to Christ.”

Unknown Christ in Hinduism:Pannikar Wrote: “There is a living presence of Christ in Hinduism”. He also wrote: “Christ does not belong to Christianity, he only belongs to God. It is Christianity and Hinduism as well that belong to Christ, though in two different levels.” Thus, for Pannikkar the mystery of Jesus Christ is present in a hidden way, perceptible to Christian faith alone, in the religious traditions and in Hinduism alone. . Pannikar posit that Hindu concept of Isvara can be equated with Christ. Christ the “only mediator” is present and active in all authentic religions, “whatever the forms or name”.Christians give the name “Christ “to this “ever-transcending but equally ever-humanly immanent” of the mediator; other religions may rightly give other names.

Christ-Center Koinonia: For MM.Thomas , he envisages a three levels of koinonia in Christ : first, the koinonia of the Eucharistic community of the church, itself a unity of diverse peoples acknowledging the person of Jesus as the Messiah; Second , a larger koinonia of dialogue among people of different faiths inwardly renewed by their acknowledgment of the ultimacy of the pattern of suffering servant hood as exemplified by the crucified Jesus; third , a still larger koinonia of those involved in the power-political struggle for new societies and a world community based on secular or religious anthropologies informed by the agape of the cross. . Christ is impacting all these levels. It is also known as Christ Center Syncretism. For MM.Thomas, the New Testament hymns of creation in John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrew 1, and in the creeds where “all things” are seen as having been crated through Christ and by Him, and as subsisting in him and oriented towards him. Such a universal presence of Christ also posits the possibility and the reality of people being saved “ not by relating only to that historical life, death and resurrection in which the pattern was made plain, once for all, but by relating also to the pattern wherever it emerges” in the tissue of historical existence-not merely religious existence, but just human existence, religious or secular, and not only n contemporary history, but in whole history of humanity.

Uniqueness in New creation: According to P.Chenchechiah, Beyond the teaching and life of Christ is the fact of Christ, which is of universal significance because it prophecies and realizes a new creative order. Herein lies the gospel of Christianity, its uniqueness. In a man, as in Jesus, a new creative factor has entered creation. Man has been the centre and the creator of a new order by virtue of the new life which is his. So also Christ is the creator of the kingdom of God which is the new world of the children of God. Jesus is unique not merely because He descends from heaven and stands aloof from man and history, stretching his helping hands across a yawning gulf, but because he issues forth from the heart of man, revealing himself as the inner impulse, the motive of new creative life..

Uniqueness in Fulfillment, For Swami Abhisiktananda The Vedas and Upanishad find their completion-their sensus plenior- in Christ, who is really “ the end of the Vedanta, since He is the beginning and the end, the lord of everything….Hindus have nothing to lose of their own spiritual riches in recognizing Christ as the real and definitive purusha. Jn Farquhar coming along the similar vein, published “The Crown of Hinduism” asserting Christ as the end of Vedas.

Uniqueness as contextual: This approach asserts that one cannot deny the affirmation of the uniqueness that is very clear in the New Testament. But these affirmations are to be interpreted in their context. Early Christians were faced with the emperor-cult of Romans and the various mystery cults against whom they affirmed the uniqueness of Christ. Some feel that the affirmation has now needed to be rethought. Paul F kniiter strongly argue that the absolute and exclusive quality of New Testament Christology tells us more about the social situation of the early church than about the ontological nature of Jesus. He called the doctrinal language as “survival language”, basically to strengthen the minority Christian community from persecution. S.J Samartha wrote, “If Jesus Christ is God’s gift to the whole world it would be a serious mistake to insist that the gift should be received, unwrapped and appreciated only in one particular way.” He also argues the impossibility of the Graeco-Roman-Western particularity setting up itself as the norm and obliterating all other particularities. He believe that an insight in the revelation of God through Jesus Christ for all people in ways as yet unknown in the history of the church should be brought out.

Uniqueness as “The Spirit in Christ”: According to Mazoomdar, Jesus Christ is unique, first because he completes all other partial and local incarnations and makes for a truly spiritual and universal incarnation of the Spirit, and provides an everlasting model of the divine order of humanity. According to Mazoomdar, “Jesus Christ was in spirit” in Socrates, Abraham and “all the great and good “ever reverenced in humanity’; he is “the type of humanity”, the divine Man. Secondly, “Christ is unique because he perfectly embodies the true and universal relation between God and man.Mazoomdar affirms that “Christ has not only risen but returned as he promised” in the Holy Spirit. And therefore the Brahmo Samaj declares the dispensation of the Spirit making possible an unceasing “succession of divine humanity”.

Conclusion:
Due to diverse context and cultures in India, the uniqueness of Christ is developed in many ways. The Ecumenical, Roman Catholic and the Evangelical have their own perception, and sometimes it is categorized as Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism. Whatever our perception may be, Christian is called to hold on to faith and be faithful till the end. Before we conclude, let us do an appraisal and critique of what have been discussed earlier.
It looks as though the new pluralistic approach to religion has tended to remove the secure and solid ground of our faith. Recognition of historical consciousness of religious beliefs, however, can easily lead us to relativity, where every point is to be accepted and in which non one is allowed to make absolute judgments on the other. As Langdon Gilkey phrases it, “ecumenical tolerance represents an impressive moral and religious gain, a step toward love and understanding. But it has its own deep risks, and one of them is the specter of relativity, this loss of any place to stand, the elimination of the very heart of the religious as ultimate concern.
The heart of cosmic Christology, the separation of the person of Jesus from the principle or idea of Christ goes against the grain of Chalcedonian Christological formula. The rejection of tradition (which happily has the support of the Bible) by cosmic Christologists is no surprise, since, starting from existential situation they can hardly give place for church history in their thinking. Whatever be the history of the Chalcedonian session, the non-speculative preciseness of its Christological definition (two natures in one person, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation) can only be attributed to the providential ruling and wisdom of God who rules and overrules in the affairs of men. In attempting to define the idea of Christ in total separation from the human nature of Jesus, cosmic Christology is a radical Christology. WEF Manila Declaration states, “We affirm that the universal message of Christ is essentially dependent on the historical Jesus Christ who, in his particularity, is the very act of God and that therefore it is not appropriate to refer to the Christ principle in other religions, or to cosmic Christ, or to the hidden Christ, or to the unnamed Christ except in connection with and in dependence on Jesus of Nazareth.
The danger of universalism is that it reduces all our understanding of special revelation to the providence of God in general revelation. Such position undercuts all claims to the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ and the Cross.
However, there is no firm biblical evidence that God has closed the door completely for those who do not have an opportunity to encounter Christ in their lifetime.
The limitation in the fulfillment theory is that its attempt to connect Christianity as the fulfillment of Hinduism in some way is doubtful. The hindu might ask, “ is there Moksha in Christianity” that is, does Christianity provide deliverance from the bondage to Karma Samsara ( the cycle of births and rebirths) into a state of union of the atman and the Brahman? The obvious answer is “No”.
As it was discussed in the beginning of this paper. God Yahweh chose Israel nation as His chosen people and through this nation came Jesus whom through God’s plan of redemption is revealed. And as revealed in the New Testament, Jesus is the “one mediator” between God and Humanity (1 Tim2:5). There is “no other name” by which persons can be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the “ only begotten Son of God” (Jn 1:14).No one comes to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6).Just as all died in one man, Adam, so all will be brought to life in one man, Christ (1 cor. 15:21-22) What took place in him was “once and for all” (epaphax)(Heb.9:12).He is the final prophet, providing the normative, final word for all who preceded or may follow. The Bible is clear about this and Christians are commission to spread the good news to the entire world.
Unless Christ is proclaimed as the unique Lord and Savior of the World attested by the Scriptures and the apostles, our offer of salvation, peace and justice to the world is meaningless and empty. Similarly, unless Christ’s Lordship, authority and supremacy are of universal value as affirmed by Scripture and the apostles, then our involvement with ethical issues to the world lacks any credibility and legitimacy. Christ cannot offer to the world his salvation, peace and justice if he himself does not have any universal value and import. In Paul’s words, it involves a mystery that, “for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be known…..according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence” (Eph 3:9b-12 NIV). If Paul and early church could say that in the midst of their culture and religious diversity, we can feel confident in doing as well. “Jesus Christ is Lord.” In the midst of many cultures and peoples of many faiths, let’s learn to be bold evangelists: faith particularist , culturally pluralist, and ecclesiologicallly inclusvist.

Bibliography
Amaladoss, Michael S.J “Is Christ the Unique Savior? A Clarification of the question” in What does
Jesus Christ? The Meaningfulness of Jesus Christ amid Religious Pluralism in India .Edited by
Errol D’Lima,SJ & Max Gonsalves,SFX .Bangalore:Dharmaram Publications,2004.
Byod, Robin .An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology .Delhi, ISPCK, 1969.
Biblical Theology in Asian, Edited by Ken Gnannakan .Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1995.
Corrie J. “Kingdom of God” in Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundation. Edited by
John Corrie & et al .England: Inter-varsity Press, 2007.
Chenchiah, P.” Wherein Lies the Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian View” in Readings
Indian Christian Theology.Edited by R.S Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves .Delhi: ISPCK,
1993.
Costa, Gavin D’ .Theology and Religious Pluralism .Oxford, U k: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Engen, Charles Van “ The Uniqueness of Christ in Mission Theology” in Christianity and the
Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, edited by Edward Rommoen and Harold
Netland .Pasedena,California: William Carey Library,1995.
Gnanakan, Ken. The Pluralistic Predicament: Theological Issues Series No.1 .Bangalore: Theological
Book Trust, 1992.
Gnanakan, Ken. Salvation: Some Asian Perspective .Bangalore: Asian Theological Association, 1992.
Henry, Sarojin. The Encounter of Faith and Science in Inter-Religious Dialogue .Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.
Jacques Dupuis,S.J , Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism .Gujarat: Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash, 2001.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Names? London: SCM Press Ltd, 1985.
Raju, T.Swami .Christian Responses to Plurality of Religion .Bangalore: BTESSC/SATHRI, 2006.
Thomas, MM Risking Christ for Christ‘s Sake .Geneva: Wcc Publication, 1987.
Thomas, MM. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance .Madras: The C.L.S, 1970.
Turaki ,Yusuf “ The Unique Christ for Peace and Justice” in The Unique Christ in our Pluralist
WorldEdited by Bruce J.Nicholls .GrandRapids, Michigan, 1994.
.The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World, edited by Bruce J.Nicholls .Grand
Rapids,Michigan:Baker Book House,1994.
Samartha . S.J One Christ-Many Religions .Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute,
1991
Singh, Narendra. A Christian Theology of Religions: Recovering Dialectical Method
Bangalore:SAIACS Press,2005.
Sumithra, Sunand “Conversion: to Cosmic Christ?” in Doing Theology in context, edited by Sunand
Sumithra .Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1992.
Wainwright, Goeffrey. “Uniqueness of Christ” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Edited
by Nicholas Lossky & et al .Geneva: WCC Publication, 2002.
Wright, Christopher J.H. “Uniqueness of Jesus” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Edited
by A. Scott Moreau & et al .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bakers Books, 2000.

Imago Dei: Created in the Image of God

2010-12-24T04:09:00.000-08:00

The biblical discussion turns on the Hebrew words “selem” and “demut”, and the New Testament Greek terms “eikon” and “homoiosis.” The earliest significant commentary on the concept of the imago dei was done by Irenaeus (ca.140-202). Based on what is now considered a doubtful exegesis of Gen 1:26, Irenaeus posited a twofold character to the imago dei based on the distinction between the words image (tslem) and likeness (Demuth). Image was thought to represent the basic form of human, while likeness was taken to mean the material content of righteousness, which was lost or atleast interrupted in its development by the fall. Most scholars today view the two phrases as a construct of Hebrew parallelism, pointing to the single endowment that constitutes the uniqueness of humanity created by God.
Reformation Theologian’s view: Luther attacks Augustine’s view that the image consist of memory, understanding and will. In this case Satan could be said to exhibit the image of God. Luther understood the image as essentially man’s response to God by loving and glorifying Him while Calvin claimed man could be like or resemble God only in the area of spiritual and rational attributes. Reformed theologians subscribed to the position that image were knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
Double aspect of the Image: Emil Brunner saw a double aspect of the image, the formal phase which is unchangeable and cannot be affected by sin, and the material image which was lost through the fall.
Barthian View: Karl Barth stressed the “I –Thou” or “face –to-face” relation, and originally denied God had created man in His own image but later changed his position.
Androgyne: Some modern scholars posit that the original Adam prior to the creation of Eve stands as the first human being bearing the image of God for masculine and feminine individuals. The Androgyne Myth also revealed an original state of humanity in which male and female is single entity. However one should note that such concept stems from Gnosticism. Therefore it might not refer to biological distinction of sexes. Pheme Perkins opines that many Jewish interpretations of Gen 1; 26-27 thought of Adam as originally created “male/female.” This androgynous Adam possessed the image of God as a “garment of light.” After the fall, humans were divided into male and female, had become mortal and the garment of light was replaced by the “garment of skin.”
Christological and eschatological: The new theology supports an “Christological” or “eschatological” interpretation of the divine image in humankind. As New Testament concepts of New Adam – Christ bears the imago dei. But there is also need for caution over the new theology since it often incorporates an evasive turn into its Christological appeal. It diverts attention from the question of humanity’s primal origin. The attempt to delineate the archetype “Adam” is shifted to the New Adam.
Medieval Jewish view: Medieval Jewish Theologians generally followed Philo’s view, replacing logos with Plotinus’ Intellect (nous) or Aristotle’s Active Intellect. Man’s superiority over lower creation resided in his rational soul or intellect. Maimonides subscribed to this interpretation of the biblical terms, and it became standard for Jewish exegesis and philosophy.
Modern Liberal view: 20th Liberal Theologians enamored with the Wellhausen approach to the religion of Israel, the saw the entire concept of the image of God as probably dependent on Babylonian mythology. However, such hypothesis may not be viable as such theologians disagreed with the literal interpretation of Genesis creation account, and at the same time mythologizing with cognate story found in the Babylonian epic led us to question “why the bible need mythology of ancient religion for interpretation?”
Corporeal or Physical: Some have considered the image of God to be an aspect of our physical or bodily makeup. Such view still persists today. However, The image does not refer to bodily form since God is spirit (Jn 4:24) but a spiritual, natural, and moral likeness. In his spiritual likeness , man has regenerated being may have fellowship God (Eph. 2:1,); in his natural likeness, man has intellect, emotion and will to know and commune with God; in his moral likeness, man may know and obey the precepts of God.

Apart from what has been highlighted in the foregoing paragraph, another important views are “ Trichotomy” and “Dichotomy”. Trichotomy asserts human as a constituent of Spirit, soul and Body (Heb 4:12) while “Dichotomy” asserts human as a composite of Soul and Body. However, in this paper thesis will be built upon the latter, and the paucity of the former will also be elicited. Starting out with the former, it is pivotal to note that the supporting reference from Heb 4:12 does not establish soul and spirit as different entities, but different function of psychic life of humankind, as is evident from the parallel phrase “ the joints and marrow” in relation to the body. At the same time it is important to remind oneself that human is a psychosomatic being, the soul is not separate from the body. If it is so the body cannot sustain without the life-force (soul).
Evangelical expositors of the biblical revelation find the created image of God to exist formally in human personality (moral responsibility and intelligence) and materially in his knowledge of God and of his will for humanity. ,

it is widely accepted as Natural Likeness/ Human Moral/Conscience/Intelligent/Sovereignty:-
• Man was created a personal being, and was by this personality distinguished from the brute. By personality we mean the twofold power to know self as related to the world and to God, and to determine self in view of moral ends. By virtue of this personality, man could at his creation choose which of the objects of his knowledge-self, the world, or God-should be norm and centre of his development.
• Man is an intelligent being, and was created to know God, enjoy and glorify God as such; hence his moral state must have been perfect.
• Human ability to discern evil and feel guilt for it comes through the conscience. Human conscience may judge, not only oneself but also one’s family, church, and society. More specifically it refers to a capacity for second-level awareness of right and wrong, an ability to judge conduct by moral standard. And to sense one’s obligation to follow just values personally and socially.
• To sum up, humans morally are agents capable of distinguishing God’s normative counsel from the deceptive counsels of evil beings and from the ambiguous results of descriptive surveys of human conduct. This moral likeness, lost by the fall, is restored by grace ( Eph. 4:23; Col 3:10; Rom 8:29, 2nd Corinth 3:18; Ps 17:1 R.V)
• J.G. Bennett asserts that the meaning of the words, “Let us create man in our own image” is to be found in the Act whereby God bestows upon man a particle of His creative power.”

The Pre-Eminence of God’s Revelation in Christ (Heb 1:2a-4)

2010-12-03T03:10:00.000-08:00

( v.2a)But in these Last days he has spoken to us by a son: The primitive Christians and Jewish had divided times into two ages-the present age and the age to come (last days). And between these two ages, they call the transitional period or part of the last days as “the Day of the Lord”. In the prophetic book the day of the lord is characterized as a time of hope and restoration where Yahweh would triumph over the enemy. So for the Jewish readers, when they read this verse, they can understand that the writer is telling that God’ salvation has now come through His Son.

The word “son” here identified Jesus as a Messiah. as we can see in the Old Testament.
1. In Ps 2:7 it says, “You are my son; today I have begotten you”.
a. This psalm depicts the enthronement of the Messiah (the
Lord's Anointed)
b. In which Yahweh calls the Messiah "My Son"
c. The "begetting” also has a reference to the resurrection of Jesus
- Acts 13:33; Rom 1:3-4
2. Again in 2Sam 7:14 we see God says, “ I will be a father to him , and he will be a son to me “
a. The passage in 2 Samuel had immediate application to Solomon, David's
Son
b. But as the Messiah who would receive the throne of David
Was also descended from David...
1) So the ultimate application would be to the Messiah
2) I.e., Jesus, the "son of David" - Matt 1:1; Mk 10:47; Jn 7:42

So the Old Testament Prophecy is finally fulfilled in Christ. The savior – the messiah has finally come. Unlike the Human Prophets God is now revealing Himself through His Son. Jesus is God’s Ultimate Revelation.

Heirs of all things: First we see that Jesus is mentioned as an heir of all things. A direct citation from Ps 2:8. However, Jesus is not merely a fulfillment but a better fulfillment. In the Old Testament concept, in ps 2:8, the king is promised to be heirs of all nations However, in the New Testament concept it is not only nation but all things. As we can see in Mat 28:18 where Jesus said, “All authority in Heaven and on Earth is given to me.” (cf 1 Peter 3:22)

Whom he also created the worlds: Then the writer continued “Whom he also created the worlds” Here Jesus is identified with a divine wisdom, as in Jewish wisdom literature, in the apocrypha, divine wisdom is describe as an agent of creation, revelation and reconciliation . (wis 7:21-27; 9:2)

Reflection of God’s Glory. Then the writer says, “He is the reflection of God’s glory”. The Greek word “ Apaugasma” is employed here , meaning “ emitting light”. In Johannine Gospel ( jn 1:14) we see that the logos is the glory of the Father. Some times in the Old Testament this glory is also associated with the tabernacles and the temple. At Mount Sinai, the glory of God appears to Moses. So the glory means God presence or God manifestation. As we say “Immanuel “God with us”.

However one should note that the son is not merely a reflection of God’s Glory, the writer also says, Jesus is also the exact imprint of God’s very being
The Greek word “Character” is used here. Meaning stamp or image which the NRSV rendered it as “the exact imprint.”Thus Jesus is the very essence of God. As we know Jesus said that I and the father are one (Jn 10:30)

Sustainer of all things. Then the writer continued, He sustains all things by his powerful words. How many of you have ever wondered why the stars are not falling? What makes the Earth revolve around the Sun? What makes the sun set and rise?
There is famous saying of Rene Descartes one of the renowned French philosophers, “I think therefore I am”. But I think as a Christian we ought to be saying, “I think therefore Christ is” rather than saying, I think therefore I am. Because, without Jesus everything will cease to exist. For He is the one who sustains everything.

Then the writer continued, “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high”. Here Jesus is identified as the Royal priest of the Old Testament; however not in the order of Aaron as Jesus comes from tribe of Judah not a Levi.
In Ps 110: 4 God says, you are priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” Thus Jesus himself became a better fulfillment of Old Testament Royal Priest. As He himself became the element of sacrifice, He is also identified as a salvific figure and inaugurator of a better covenant (Heb 8-10) The Blood of bull and goats cannot washed away our sins but only with the blood of Jesus.
Then in verse 4 we see His Superiority over heavenly being (v4): We understand that Prophets are human being while Angels are heavenly being. Both are God’s messenger. The writer here mentioned that Jesus is much superior to angels. That is because of his name. When we look into the immediate context in
Verse 5, it says,” For to which of the angels did God ever say “you are my Son; today I have begotten you”? As we have seen earlier the son identified Him as the messiah.
In Phil 2:9, Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name.
Thus from these points we can see that Jesus stands very unique, far more superior to anything else. Supreme Revelation among Revelations.

Excavating Psalm 2: With special reference to its Eschatological Messianic Aspect

2009-04-24T13:18:00.000-07:00

This canticle comes under the genre of royal psalm particularly of coronation. It used different formats and devices such as chiasmus and parallelism. Before we try attempting to elicit the theological implication, let us first try to do verbatim explanation of the verses, especially of the key lexis. The first strophe in the canticle opens with a question, “Why do the nation rage and the people imagine a vain thing? “ (V 1) Now as vividly portrayed, the speakers contemplated over why “nations” (goyim, a word usually bearing a hostile connotation) it can be people of different nationalities, their deeds and action as depict by the author shows a great hatred towards Yahweh and His anointed-most probably the king of Israel. The verb “ragash” designates any noisy or riotous assembly that seethes in its antagonism. . “They plot in vain”, the word “rig” means “emptiness” or “futility” .Particularly in v2, the psalmist used the expression “kings of the earth” which is quite problematic to unravel. Scholars are of eclectic views; it is widely believe that it may be in conjunction with the text from 2nd Sam. 8 or 10. Further in verse 2, the word “anointed” is used. The English word from where “messiah” is derived ( GK christos) But numbers of scholars support the idea that it primarily refers to the earthly king of that particular epoch. Which is quite true but the eschatological aspects pointing to the future messiah cannot be neglected which makes the psalm prophetic and relevant to the New Testament.

The second strophes (VV.4-6) opens up in contrast to the tumultuous scene of the first strophe, here the transcendent peace that reigns inn the throne room of God is vividly portrayed. The anthropomorphism “laugh” exhibits the derisions of Yahweh against the nation rages. In v5, the repercussion of the nation’s conspiracy against Yahweh is depicted: the divine indignation is mentioned which is further synthesized in the following verse 6 with more explicit manner. The emphatic “I” is set into bolder relief by the adversative conjunction, Waw adversative. The statement is really an ellipsis. Its introductory thought is unexpressed. This would have been something like: you may rebel and make plans to overthrow my anointed one; but all I have say is.” In fact, all He does say is surprisingly simple: God has ordained His earthly king in Zion, His holy hill. The meaning of “nasakh” as “appoint “or “induct” is supported by the cognate Assyrian word “nasaku”. God’s ordained kings are His vice gerent. His kings serve as a territorial manifestation of Yahweh’s sovereignty. God always vindicate His anointed.
The third strophe opens up with a new scene (.VV-7-9). Having dealt with the divine installation of the king at Jerusalem, the poet shifted his theme on the “divine decree” (most probably the legitimating by prophets and priests of the so called “royal modus operandi” which is well known from the Egyptian royal rituals, c.f. 2nd kings 11:12) which he puts into the mouth of the kings and on which the latter’s reign is based. Yahweh has promised him divine son ship and the privileges of a son of God. The idea of the divine son ship points to the deification of the king in consequence of which king was regarded as having been begotten by the deity. It is understandable that the OT rejected the idea of physical divine son ship of the king as incompatible with the spiritual notion of God. In fact the psalmist too excludes the idea of the physical divine son ship “ you are my son “, though he leaves untouched the formula “ i have begotten you “ which originated in that foreign world of ideas. He transforms the alien idea into the idea of adoption, that is to say, into the declaration of the son ship of the king that took place on the day of the enthronement. By that act special importance is attributed not to the person of the king of such but to his office as king. The OT kingship thereby becomes a function and the instrument of the will of the divine Ruler.

The begotten doesn’t necessary implies ontologically or physically begotten but an adoption. It is a reminiscent of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14, ps 89:26). The Davidic covenant was eternal, but all covenants were renewed from time to time, when new descendants of the Davidic dynasty ascended to the throne. Thus the divine words “you are my son” shows a renewal of relationship between God and David’s house in the person of the newly crowned king. “Today” shows that the words were announced on the coronation day, the day on which the divine decree became effective. The emphasis on today also occurs in other types of the covenant renewal ceremony; see Deut 26:17 and 30:19.
The poetry in verse 9 presents this regal authority in a dramatic manner: an “iron rod” is something intrinsically strong, just as a potter’s vessel is constitutionally fragile. This stark contrast between the power of the Davidic king and the feebleness of the earthly monarchs rested not in the human strength of the Hebrew king, but in the strength of Yahweh, the one who proclaim these words.
The Fourth strophe (VV 10-12) opens up with the warning. Here the writer reverts to its starting point by addressing the rulers of the earth; exhorting and warning them. The earthly kings and rulers , who at the opening of the psalm were acting impetuously and haughtily ( 2:1-3), are now reproved and told to think very carefully (v 10) of the implication of the coronation which has just transpired. They are counseled to serve the lord; the Hebrew word “serve” has political overtones and entails that the foreign nations should submit as vassals to Israel’s God.
“Kiss the son” the expression is quite problematic to construed, scholars are divided, some translation reads, “kiss the feet”, (but the actual word is Aramaic “bar” usually translated as “ son “ ) however kissing was a sign of homage and submission (c.f 1st Sam. 10:1; 1 Kgs 19:18). Failure to submit to God through his king would result in disaster, for God’s hasty wrath would culminate in their destruction.
Now we will try to unravel the eschatological aspect of this canticle. When we juxtapose this psalm with the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3: 21-22) in the New Testament, the coalescing of these two scriptures divulge its theological implication. The expression “anointed “found in psalm 2: 2 is a reminiscent of the Holy Spirit descending (katabainon) upon Jesus, as He was anointed with power ( Acts 10:38). Philologically we can observe the relation between the Hebrew “messia” and Greek “christos” as both of these terms etymologically stems from the root word meaning “to rub “ thus the interpretation of the second verse ( ps 2) is not confined to the earthly king of that particular period but it also refers to the messiah in the New Testament.
The second expression we need to focus is “you are my son “(v7), it is true that this expression can be interpreted in the light of the Davidic covenant. But its relation with the future messiah is that “Jesus is also the son of David”. Secondly the expression is also found in Jesus’ Baptism (Luke 3:21-22).but note that Jesus is the unique son. The Greek word “ monogenes” ( see Jn 3:16) often translated as “ begotten” actually means “ unique”. Greek “mono” means “one “while “genes” comes from “ genos” which means “kind” so it means “ one of a kind”. That shows that Jesus is the unique son- the messiah (unique from the rest of the Davidic son).
The third expression in verse 9 “iron rod” also shows us its relation with the New Testament Messiah. In Revelation 2: 27, Jesus says, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my father.”
Lastly but no the least, the expression “kiss the son “shows submission to Jesus as He is the only savior (Acts 4:12). So in the life and ministry of Jesus we can the see the eschatological fulfillment of what was prognosticated in this psalm. Further the historical and the eschatological aspect shows us that the word of God is not confined to one particular time period but it transcends all time barrier from past, present to future. It is poignant that many people have this notion that the word of God is no longer relevant in our life. But let us remember, the bible is not a history book but our daily bread.
.

Exegetical Analysis on Ps 116:1-11

2009-03-02T03:16:00.001-08:00

Vs.1” I love the lord because he has heard my voice and my supplication”. The name “Yahweh” occurs no less than 15 times throughout the psalm, which is more than 11% of the total number of words! The word Elohim', ‘God’, appears only in v. 5b. Ehrlich writes “here we encounter one of the most difficult passages in the psalms,” but progress in northwest Semitic philology enables the Hebraist to elicict sense from the poet’s crowed syntax. If the MT ‘ahabti, “ I have loved, “ is repointed to the substantive ‘ahabati, the critic can explain the latter as an accusative of cause followed by the objective genitive ending of the first-person singular or he may analyze the ending of the first person singular and compare Isa 1xiii 9, be’ahabato….hu’ ge’alam, “ in his love…..he avenged them,” and Jer xxxi 3, we ’ahabat ‘olam ‘ahabtik, “With an eternal love I love you,” Cf.also 1 John iv 19,” we love , because he first loved us.” In this case the first colon would read, “In his love Yahweh did hear.” Also note The verb used expresses human affection, and with Yahweh, called forth occurs in the Psalms elsewhere only in 31:23, 97:10, 145:20; on the other hand, it s use is frequent when the object is the law , the commandments, and the name of Yahweh.

Vs.3 “The bands (snares –NRSV rendition)of death”. The ambivalent translation “bands” has been chosen to reflect the ambivalence of Heb. Heble, which can mean either “bonds, cords” or “companies of persons or animals,” as in 1 Sam 10:5,10 and Job xxxix 3, they crouch bring forth their young (yaldehem), their bands (hebleham) they send out.”

Encompassed me…..overtook me. Good chiasmus marks this verse… emissaries of sheols. The tradition rendition “ the pangs of sheol” can scarcely be reconciled with the predicate mesa’unt, which is consequently distorted to “ laid hold on me” (rsv). Consonantal msry is easily relate to sir, “ messenger , emissary,” from the root sw/yr, “ to beckon,” described as Ps 1xxvii 3.hence msry would parse as a noun or passive participle. That death employed messengers to execute his will is well known from the phrase of Prov xiv 14, malake mawet, “the two messengers of death.”
Overtook me .ascribing to mesa’uni the only sense it possesses in ugar, msa-mza, “ to reach,”.

vs.6 “ the simple”( or the innocent). That is, of the inexperienced.
But he saved me. The yaqtl verb yehosia ‘, in tandem with the qtl form dalloti, “ I was brought low,” states a single completed action.

Vs.7 return, my soul. In the next verse the psalmist will expand this dialogue of a man with his soul to include other members of his body. That the Canaanites were familiar with thi literary convention appears from UT, 127:25-28, ap ysb ytb lhkl wywsrnn ggnh lk labk ysb lk (la) bk wrgm, “ then yassib returned to the palace, and his innards instructed him: “go to your father yassib, go to your father and say.’”
To your rest. Indicating more a condition of rest than a place of rest. The opposite condition is described by the verb hamah,” to sigh, be disquited,” predicated of the soul in the dialogue of ps x1ii 6; 12. scholars puzzle over the unique plural form menuhaykl, “ your rest,” but a satisfactory explanation is supplied by the desire for assonance with the phenomenon is noted in ps ciii 1, where the need for another syllable is alleged as the reason behind the choice of the hapax legomenon plural form qerabay, “ my inmost parts .” On the second-person feminine suffix ki (also in vs.19).Also note in vs.7a the suffixes are Aramaic forms.

Vs.8 …have been rescued. Often emended with the ancient versions to third-person hilles, “ he has rescued,” This reading , then , continues the dialogue begun by feminine subi, “ return” in the preceding verse.

From death. The local meaning of mawet, documented at Pss vi 6 and 1vi 14, has likewise escaped attention in job xxx 23, where the synonymy with bet mo ‘ed, “ the meeting house,” indicates that mawet tesibent is most correctly rendered , “ you will return me to Death”; contrast RSV, “ thou wilt bring me to death,” not simply “you will bring me.”

You. repointing MT ‘et to pronominal ‘att, a vocalization that also protects the MT singular readings ‘ent, “ mine eye,” and ragli, “ my foot,” against the dual vocalization of some ancient versions.

Mine eye. The psalmist addresses his eye in an unusual dialogue beyond the grasp of the syriac version which conveniently dropped this colon.
Tears. The local sense ascribed to parallel mawet, “ death,” suggests that dim‘ah is another poetic name for the infernal regions depicted in Matt vii 14 as place “ of weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Cf. Ps 1i 16, “deliver me from the tears of death.”

Vs 9. the fields of life. Having been rescued from sheol, the psalmist is convinced that his future life will be spent in the presence of Yahweh in heaven. In the cognate verse ps 1vi 14, the text reads ur ( MT ‘or) hahyyim.

Vs 10. I remained faithful. This appears to be the straightforward meaning of hiphil he’emanti. From vss. 7-9 it is clear that faith in Yahweh was the sustaining force of the psalmist’s life. Some Heb.mss. make a break after v11 probably influenced by the ending of ps 56. 10b Lxx dio “ therefore” is followed by 2cor 4:13. was it corrupted from dioti “ because “? The corruption occurs in Lxx mss occasionally ,e.g. Isa 3:8; Jer 20:4. in the greek psalter dioti is never found and dio only here.

Vs 11. “Every man is unreliable.” Or “everyone is a liar” (NRSV rendition) all the more reason, then, for the psalmist to rely on God. “everyone is a liar”, lit. “ are lying”, is extremely inappropriate.

Through the canticle the psalmist exhibits the unchanging mercifulness of Yahweh to His Ebed. Such attitude of the psalmist deity is expressed to those who are humble in the heart, as vividly portrayed in the very word of the psalmist, “the Lord Protects the simple-hearted.” Yahweh’s abundant grace and compassion encompasses those Ebed with the disposition of humility. The psalmist magnification and exuberated exultation of Yahweh’s deeds exhibit the profundity of the psalmist personal experience of Yahweh’s benevolent. Thus ramifying and compelling the psalmist to exalt and praise Yahweh out of an irresistible joyful experience.

Theologically it depicts to the minds of the readers; the very nature of Yahweh-His compassionate love that remain steadfast through all circumstances and storms of life. Yahweh extends his love and grace in the midst of His ebed’s suffering ;even to the point of death His steadfast love remains stable and firm. Just as His faithfulness to the psalmist. It is pivotal to be aware of one of the underlying implications of the canticle i.e. the faithfulness of Yahweh to His Ebed. It is signifying to grapple that such disposition of Yahweh is not confined within the parameter of the particular time of the writer (or is limited to that particular historical time) but one can still be a recipient of such grace in the present day. As Yahweh’s love is unchanging and thus transcends all epoch from past, present and future. the revelatory of this psalm further sets a paradigmatic principle that the present day‘s ebed Yahweh should espouse. It is vital to resonate in the hearts of God’s servants that Yahweh is always attentive to the cry of His servant. , on the other hand it reminds the readers that psalms should not be typecast as an archaic insignifying sacred scripture without having any present day’s application. But paradoxically it speaks of God’s heart to His servants thus making it pertinent till today.

Was Paul A Mysogynist?: Critical Exegetical analysis on 1st Cor. 14 & 1st Timothy 2:11

2009-02-24T04:46:00.000-08:00

One may ask, what about the text from 1st Cor. 14: and 1st Timothy 2:11? Does it not clearly forbid the women from teaching in the church? It is widely believes among the theologians that, this two text has forbid women from teaching in the church. Several scholars like Hans Conzelman, G..D. Fee and J.M-O’ Conner hold that these verses are an interpolation by later editor here (note that NRSV also puts it in parenthesis with a note). If that is true then it has very little to offer about Paul’s attitude towards women. But the actual problem here is that it turns out, the verses in (34-35) are shuffled around in some of the important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40.” Scholar like Bruce Metzger points out that, this may have been an intentional effort on the part of a scribe “to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.” There are suggestions that women in the Corinthian church adopted frenzied shouting of the women in the Dionysus cult and hence Paul tries to stop that practice in the church. Likewise, the word “speak” is understood to mean “speaking in tongues” and Paul forbids women from it. Judging prophecies or teaching in the church by women is also believed to be the point Paul contends with in this passage. But this approach does not satisfactorily answer the question at hand.

In both 1 cor. 11:2-16 and 14:33b-35 Paul deals with some specific problems in the church. C.K. Barret argues that Paul had been informed of feminist pressure (possibly of feminine chatter) which was contributing seriously to the disorder of the Christian assembly in Corinth, and took energetic measures to stamp it out
So, when Paul says “let them ask their husband at home because it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church” he means that if woman had any doubts or questions they should clarify them from their husbands at home. It implies that Paul assumes men to have better knowledge about what was going on in the worship service. Now, therefore, Paul puts the onus of educating the women on the men. This will put an end to the problem of disrupting the worship from women asking irrelevant questions, “As for law also says “is difficult to understand .Which law is in Paul’s mind? If it means rabbinic law Paul never calls them as “the law” and if it is the OT then there is no OT passage which specifically says about woman’s subordination. But most probably Paul is referring to the Gen 3:16-“and he shall rule over you.”
Therefore, When Paul says that “women should be silent in the churches’ he does not mean that they are not allowed to pray, prophesy, preach or teach in the church (cf. 11:5-12). But they should keep silent by not asking questions or making inquiries from the preachers or their husbands during the worship so that the church worship is not disturbed. But what about Paul’s instruction to Timothy in his 1st Epistles (2:11ff)
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (Verse 12)
When taking the text at face value, as it is often done by many preachers, it is indeed certain that the Paul had imposed a prohibition on women, forbidding them to teach or to have authority in the Christian assembly .But why? Let us carefully study the text and draw out what it is all about. Was Paul really a Misogynist as conjectured by Holger Kersten? It seems that Paul is always having problems with the women in the church. Or is it that the problem has to do with the women not Paul. There must be a reason behind Paul’s instruction which we will try to unravel.
It has been debated much among scholars, Some scholars argues that Paul’s used of “I” represents his personal opinion and not his binding judgment.Comparision is often made to 1 cor. 7 where Paul differentiates between a charge coming from himself and a charge coming from the Lord (vv 10, 12). His language is even less authoritative when he encourages single people not to get married: “I have no command of the Lord, but I give command as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that….(1 Cor 7:25-26).However, Paul is discussing two different ( but related) items: divorce and marriage / remarriage. On his comment about divorce (1 cor 7:10-16), it is generally agreed that Paul is not distinguishing between command and opinion but between traditions coming from the earthly Jesus through the church and what he, as apostle of Jesus, knows to be true. This does not lessen the authority of his pronouncements but rather identifies their authoritative source as Jesus. So this kind of interpretation does take us anywhere.Lets continue with our investigation.
It is also said that when the phrase, “I do not permit,” has to do with the present tense of the verb. It is argued that because the present tense is used, it should be translated “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” or “I am not permitting.” Some also says, when the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” But Greek expert like Daniel Wallace argues that , “When one looks at the use of the present tense in the Pastoral Epistles, there are 111 present tense indicative verbs. If all of these were relegated also to the author’s present situation, then the Pastoral epistles would no longer teach that the law is not for the just (1Tim 1:9), that God wishes that all could be saved (1 Tim 2:4;4:10),that it is a good thing to pursue the office of elder( 1Tim 3:1), that the mystery of the Christian religion is great (1 Tim 1:9), that physical exercise is of some value but godliness is infinitely more valuable( 1 Tim 4:8), that children should take care of their parents and grandparents ( 1 Tim 5:4), that there is great gain in godliness ( 1Tim 6:6), that those desiring to be rich fall into temptation ( 1 Tim 6:9), that the love of money is the root of all evils ( 1 Tim 6:10); and the list goes on.” Now, it seems that grammatically analyzing the text also does not lead us anywhere in our investigation. If we look at some of the writing of Paul it is plausible that he is allowing only the older women to teach and train the younger women (Titus 2: 3-4) but not to men. But this seems contradictory as Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).
Now let us try to approach our investigation from different vista, as the exegetical truism says, “a text without a context is a pretext.” So we will not focus only from the grammatical syntactical analysis, but approach the text from the context as well. In 1st Tim 1:3-7 it reads, “ I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instructs certain people not to teach any different doctrine, and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculation rather than the divine training that is know by faith,”(NRSV). This passage shows that Paul is instructing Timothy to stop a certain people from teaching a wrong doctrine. But who? Who are this certain people that Paul is talking about? The inclusive word “people” is most probably added by the NRSV translator, as NRSV always used inclusive language. The NIV translation used “men” which helps the reader understand the gender. But, the Greek manuscript gave away such translation showing that as an alteration of the original text. As the word “men” does not appear in the Greek manuscript. The KJV rendering of “certain one” seems to fit the Greek manuscript . The actual Greek word used “tisin” stem from the root word “ tis ” which means one, someone, a certain one.
So from this word studies, it is very much evident that Paul refused to disclose their names or identity personally in his letter (see footnote 13) as Timothy is aware of whom he is talking about. Also as epistles are usually read out loud in the congregation so this could be one of the reasons why Paul refused to disclose names. Some also suggest that the opponents were men who had won a following among some women. (2Tim 3:6-7) So, in this case, the NRSV rendering of “people” can be accepted as this view includes both men and women.
The text in 2:11 can be the only possible key to unlock what Paul meant by certain one in Ch 1:3. Apart from 2:11, nowhere in the whole epistle (i.e. 1st Timothy) we found Paul referring again to such kind of instruction regarding prohibition of teaching .So one can say that those women were teaching a wrong doctrine and that Paul is instructing Timothy to stop them, now the used of present tense of “I do not permit” further contributed in our understanding of the text. Thus it does not apply universally. The results of our finding is further supported by the immediate Chapter , in the context (3:11), Paul is talking about the office of a deacon, and in vs. 11, the word “ gynaikas” (women as rendered by NRSV) which stem from the root word “gyne” is ambiguous , it can either mean “wife” and “woman,” but the context helps us to understand that , Paul is referring to the wives of the deacon or the women deacons.(rendered as women’s deacon by NRSV in the foot note).Also note: the feminine form of the word ‘diakonos” had not yet been created. In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is called a “diakonos” ( the masculine form is used here, and the first reference to “diakonissa”(feminine form) occurs in the fourth century in canon 19 of the council of Nicea) .So if Paul is giving charge to Timothy regarding the qualification of the Deacon and Women deacon ( ch.3) there is no point of forbidding a women to teach in the church in the preceding chapter(2:11), or else Paul would not make any sense.
To further enhance our interpretation of this text, let us as well take a glimpse of the historical background before we jump to the final conclusion. Ephesus was the location of the temple of Artemis, considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Artemis was a fertility goddess worshipped by many throughout Asia, especially in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27-28, 34-35).
Artemis was a woman-centric fertility goddess said to promise her worshippers fertility of crop and livestock. She also supposed to offer safety in childbirth. Positioned as superior to men; she had no male consort. Statues of Artemis are covered with what some archeologists believes to be male testicles, giving her ability to reproduce without the assistance of male. No wonder her worshippers screamed, “Great is the artemis of the Ephesians,” (Acts 19:28). For this reason, Artemis was believed superior to and independent of men, and perhaps so too the women who worshipped her.
Paul’s letter to Timothy was written in response to false teaching in Ephesus, where followers of Artemis were Zealous (see Acts 19:23 ff). The first chapter of Timothy outlines this false teaching, which Paul call myths and endless genealogies that have shipwrecked the faith of some (1 Timothy 1:3-7, 19-20). False teachers, perhaps including women were troubling the church by forbidding marriage and by insisting upon food rituals ( 1 Timothy 4;3).Therefore we conclude that the women in the church at Ephesus were involved in false teaching , perhaps by incorporating the teachings of Artemis who assumed an independence from or superiority over men, through abusive authority. Paul instruct such women to learn and to live respectable lives that do not abuse authority, but reflects a life of faith and holiness, and interdependence with men that may include marriage and children. So ,one can clearly see that Paul was never against women , on the contrary it was he who had appointed women as a deacon in the midst of male dominated culture of the Palestine and elsewhere.
(Feel free to write to the author if you want a full paper presentation on this topic-billyjason16@yahoo.co.in)

Subtle Deception

2008-09-08T03:59:00.000-07:00

After a fatal blow on the Christendom by Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, myriad books of the same genre are flooding the markets. These days books like Jesus lived in India is selling like hot cakes, the author Holger Kersten claimed that the evidences are irrefutable; he argued that Jesus was buried in Srinagar and his tomb still exist in Kashmir .Another current much talk about book is “The Jesus family tomb” which was released last year in February. It is a compilation of two author’s works; Simcha Jacobovici and Pellegrino. Here, the authors asserts that in an excavation in 1980 a tomb with an inscription “Yeshua bar Yosef” in Aramaic (Jesus Son of Joseph) was discovered with nine other tombs, which is believed to be of Mary Magdalene and other related to Jesus. Besides all these, 2006 best selling non-fiction book of the year, “The God Delusion,” by Dr.Richard Dawkins, is still attracting multitudes of bookworms, buyers and all kinds of people around the globe. Over 1.5 million was sold in 2007, and has been translated to 31 other language.Dawkins postulates that, the belief in the existence of God is the result of a mind virus which he called meme, so, theism is all about delusion. There are many other books apart from these, these are only the tip of an iceberg. I am sure, as we are reading this, a question surface in our hearts, “What kind of insanity is this, how can they perpetrate such a blasphemous deed?”The same question is resonating in the hearts of millions around the globe.

Infact, it is the sound of an invasion, Satan is raising up his elite army of skeptic, atheist, agnostic and relatavist, to break down the walls of religions. Sophistry is the weapon of their choice while doubt is their strategy, and subtle deception is the name of the game. Long time ago Freud once said “Religion is a Childhood Neurosis,” and today the seed has sprung up and multiplied as more and more people are espousing to such view, the existence of God is often challenged ,and it has become one of the hottest topics in the cyber chat room. One of the survey shows that only 57% of the church going youths in America believe in the existence of an absolute truth? May I ask, what are the rest of the 43%, doing in the Church? Flirting with the truth I guess! Then what about in our country? Are we a Churchian (playing with church) or a Christian? It is true that a modern apostate materialized man does no longer feel the need of God anymore; he is driven by his desire to gratify his own lust; accumulation of money is the symbol of his security, peace and power. In such category, there is no room for God. Theism or spirituality is now considered as axiomatic or irrationality. “How can you say there is a God, when you cannot see it, hear it or touch it?” -has become the attitude of a modern man. Bertrand Russell (L) once said “I will tell God, you didn’t give me enough evidence to believe in you.” Today, this kind of worldview is woven into the fabric of our modern thinking, lifestyle and culture. Multitudes after multitudes are deluded by such atheistic worldview. Their main argument runs along these lines; if everything has a cause and effect, God created man, but who created God? So it is more reasonable to believe that we are the random product of time plus matter plus chance.

So, as a Christian, what is our response to these highly intellectual sophisticated questions? Is spirituality, an irrationality? Is God only a figment of imagination? Well, before I attempt to answer some of these questions, I would like to pose one question in our minds “What is reality?” Many people repudiated the existence of God because according to them, reality is what they can senses with their sense organs. But is it true that, what we can sense with our sensory organ alone is the absolute reality. If that is how we perceive reality then there is no possibility to believe in the existence of God. One of the tactics of the enemy is to blind our vision from the truth; he wanted us to have a myopic vision and be totally ignorant of what lies beyond this world. In the wilderness when he tempted Jesus , he asked him to turn the stone into bread , he tried to divert his attention to the momentary need, he also asked Jesus to bow down before him in exchange of the splendor and the glory of this world which again shows momentary wealth and fame. His trick is to make us entangled with the temporal things and be doomed for eternity. So it is one of his games to make people believe that this world is the absolute reality; to live only for the temporal world. Going back to our question “What is reality?”In fact, what we can sense with our sensory organs alone is not the absolute reality. Quantum physics tells us that reality has three layers. The visible world is called the outer layer or the first layer of reality. The second layer is called Atom, and this atom is not visible to our naked eye, it is made up of positively charged nucleus in which protons and neutrons are bound together, balanced by negatively charged electrons. The proton and neutron are further made up of tinier particles called “quarks.” According to Einstein these quarks are nothing but discrete packets of energy. So this is the brink of the third layer of reality .please understand, that this third layer are all abstract substance. Now we see that, the visible world cannot exist independently without the abstract substance (unseen world), and the Bible says, “So that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Heb 11:3b).This simple scientific explanation tells us that, there is a reality beyond the sensation of our senses, so it is irrational to say that “God does not exist because we cannot sense him though our sensory mechanism.”

Secondly, are we a mere random product of time plus matter plus chance? Looking at the creation; the universe, the solar system; the living beings and everything in it, I would like to ask, do they look like they are an outcome of an accident ?Indeed they look like they are designed. The harmony, uniformity and the intricacy of the universe alone shows the impossibility of it existence without a master designer. Science again tells us that the universe has it singular beginning about 14 billion years ago. All matter, energy, time and space came onto existence out of nothing, and the biblical doctrine of creatia ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) tells us that God created this world out of nothing. Which is further supported by the Vedas’ cosmology: the first thing the Brahman uttered into the void was a sound; “ Om.” Simply by looking at the human being, also tells us that we are not a mere random product of time plus matter plus chance. Because chance has no absolutivity, the product of chance cannot have absolute answer; it has a tendency to change. Sometimes it will be this way and sometimes it will be that way. But we human beings don’t change in our design, we all have one head, two arms, one body and two legs, and even if the world continue to survive for another 1000 yrs, this will remain the same. Because this is the way the master designed us from the beginning. So, chance has no place here. Just a mere irrational thinking.

Lastly, I would like to say, it is the most foolish question to ask “who created God,” as we know the word God is used synonymously to the word “Ultimate Reality.”So my question is “how can something else exist prior to the ultimate,When the word ultimate already tells us that, he or she whom we ascribed to ultimate is the only source.” So to conclude I am compelled to say, theism or spirituality is not irrationality but on the contrary to debunk it, is what should be considered as irrationality. May God open their eyes.

2008 Ministry

2008-08-25T08:09:00.000-07:00

Dedicated to Watchman Nee

2008-08-17T05:58:00.000-07:00

Is this a recorded sound of HELL?

2008-08-17T05:56:00.001-07:00

God is calling you

2008-06-04T00:21:00.000-07:00

Soul free concert(With Abigail and Christabel-nzcc auditorium allahabad)

2008-03-07T22:35:00.000-08:00

Vocals-Abigail and Christabel
Lead guitar-Billy
Rhythm-Joshua
Bass-Ronnie
Drums-Santosh

The Last Days’ Pandora

2008-03-06T04:00:00.000-08:00

“But Mark this; there will be a terrible times in the last days. People will be a lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power.”(2Tim3:1-5)

The ultimate answer to happiness is not institute in accomplishment of futile fantasy. The menu of the cosmic grandeur contains an enormous medley of enticing but barren items in it. Pleasure seeking, mammon, wealth, gluttony, fornication or wine cannot slake the inner emptiness of a living soul. A carnal man hankers to gratify the unbridled hedonistic fixation (the lust of the flesh).Pursuing such nasty sensual covetousness will not satisfy the inward craving for blissful experience. Hollow figment of imagination is a deception that propels a carnal human to fumble an idyllic illusion, or in other word quixotically meandering in the jungle of human’s philosophy. To be driven by such illusion is like chasing a wind. The pages of Ecclesiastes engraved a lasting souvenir of such ineffectual life.

Man is created with a purpose, he is not a result of an evolution, and man does not come into this world by accident or by mere chance. The inner vacuum is set aside for the dwelling place of the author of mankind. Suppressing the author of life is one of the biggest blunders that a man can make in his short span of life. For no man can escape death, and death is trailed by the judgement of the Most High God. The wisdom of this age has blinded many people to perceive the ultimate answer of their quest. The incarnated God in flesh, Christ the absolute truth came to fill up the void. “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free”. Yet many are puffed up, as they are blinded by their own hollow philosophies, consequently they refused to accept the existence of an objective truth. A carnal post modern thinker contended and repudiated the existence of objective truth, and fan personal outlook. “What is true for you is not true for me” the slogan of secular post modern thoughts.If the relativist philosophers insists that the notion of Relativism, “true for you but not for me “is indisputable, with its claim that the only objective truth is one’s own personal outlook, then I humbly requested them to reconsider their theory as they are making a fool of themselves by indirectly asserting that Christians are the descendents of Adam while the evolutionist are straight from monkeys. This concept implies no logic; to me it seems plausible that it vaguely cognates with the teaching of philosopher Epicurus of the early century. Epicureanism repudiated the existence of absolute good, and strongly affirms the significance of knowing what is good for one’s own self. But such philosophy was proved unfulfilling, and was rejected many centuries ago.
The grave error that a human often make is his ever demanding of knowing the metaphysics of something in order to accept the reality. There is nothing wrong in that but it is not always relevant. Especially when it comes to spiritual things, as a carnal mind has no faculty to conceive the mystery of God, unless the Spirit of God himself reveals it. Therefore, the Gospel of Jesus Christ will always be foolishness to the wise and the philosophers of this world.

Synonymous Parallelism:Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven

2008-01-10T03:41:00.000-08:00

The issues that I would like to reflect for this critique are the two expressions that emerges again and again in the synoptic gospel viz “the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God”. I had the privilege to attend a sundry lecture on these two topics; where I came to realize that there is a striking contrast view. One of the views asserts that both terminologies say diverse thing. While the other view affirms that they are analogous terminology.

Well, I want to share my observation in this regard; I am utterly convinced that these terminologies are synonymous parallelism which articulates an identical thing. First to support my analysis, I would like to bring out the Hebrew cultural context to throw some light on the subject matter. Back in the olden days, as well as in modern Israel, the Jewish people are forbid to used or utter the name of their deity “Yahweh”. This could be possibly because of the commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. As an alternative, they used the word “Adonai”which literarily means “lord”. So, every time a Rabbi or a priest read the “Tanakh” ( O.T Bible), the word “Yahweh” will be read as “Adonai”, this tradition was call “Kethib and Kere”, the former means “writing” while the later means “reading”. The Hebrew word “Yahweh” in the original manuscript is often translated as “Lord” in some of the English Bible. This means that the translators follow the “Kere” tradition in interpreting the script. It is also said that, in order to circumvent the used of the name of the revere deity, the Hebrew people often used the phrase “blessing from heaven” instead of saying “blessing from God”,

Now, in order to do a comparative exegetical study of the two phrases, let us look at a concise historical backdrop of the synoptic gospel where the two expressions are found. Out of the three gospels (excluding the John Gospel), the Gospel of Matthew is the solitary gospel where the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is constantly used. Though there is no substantiation of the intended audience but is strongly believed by scores of scholar that it was addressed to a mixed group mostly Jewish. Let us take a look at the 13th chapter vs. 11, He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them”, here the author used the kingdom of heaven .As I have argued earlier in the foregoing paragraph that it is exceptional for a Jewish to utter the name of their deity. Therefore, it can be understood that Matthew the writer, who was a Jewish himself, follows the Jewish traditions in his writing. Secondly, let us take a look at a Lukan gospel where the other phrase “the kingdom of God” is repetitively used. Luke the writer was a gentile, and the gospel was addressed to “Theophilus” who was also a gentile. Now, let us look at the same passage(Luke8:10a) “He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you…” here ,unlike the Jewish Gospel writer, Luke being a gentile, was straightforward in his writing; hence he did not employ any idiomatic expression .

Well, to wrap up, I must say that there is nothing to be baffled in these two expressions; I believed that this basic hermeneutic that I present here is sufficient to establish my theory. And as I have pointed out earlier, these two phrases are nothing but synonymous parallelism.

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH

2007-12-24T10:39:00.000-08:00

Faith could be described as strong or unshaken able belief in something, especially without proof or evidence_C.S Lewis.

The preceding quotation exhibits faith being independently unrelying of evidence or proof .l am sure that modern skeptics would strongly condemn such notion as irrational or erroneous. I personally agree with the author in his concept, and it is one of the very purposes of me writing this small article to share my minuscule insights in this regard. The question often posed by many skeptics. “How can we believe without evidence?”This compels me to name this article “The mystery of faith.” St Augustine once wrote, “It is the heart and not the reason which experiences God. This is what it meant by Faith.” The paradox here is that such notion appeared too abstract, but ironically, it is not to say that faith is bereft of reason or antithetic to it. But to state that, faith is neither the corollary of transcendental of human’s intellect.

One of the paradigmatic scriptural references in the New Testament is John 20:23b “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believe”. In the immediate context, Thomas Didymus seems very much skeptical in his approach; he demanded to see the stigmata so that he can believe in the resurrected Messiah. Such approach cognate with the secular notion which says “seeing is believing”, or to put in a nutshell-empirical approach. Jesus was not an empiricist; He harshly rebuked the scribes and the Pharisees for demanding signs, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for sign but no sign will be given except the sign of Prophet Jonah” (Matt 12:35b).We need to understand that, producing cogent empirical evidence alone will not lead a heathen to penitence. Senses experience is sterile, futile and impotent in such case. The perils of espousing such approach will only lead a person in an eternal quest for answers or may end up “intellectually converted” which I call “pseudo-conversion”. Please understand that I am not invalidating the apologetically methodology which I deeply respect and find it crucial in evangelism. But as the sphere of the discussion is centered on faith, I have to be honest with myself. Now, the crux of the problem is “Can we convert a pagan through our own efforts?” I doubt, is it through rhetorical presentation of a gospel, or is it through the elocution of a silver tongue oratorical preaching? Well the answer is clear, it is God Himself who draw sinners to him not human charisma or methods.As we see from Johannine's Gospel(Jn3:3) and Pauline's epistle(Rom10:17), that conversion is from above, as faith is imparted by the Holy Spirit to a yielding heart through the spoken word (Rhema) of God.

So, it is this imparted living faith that saved a man from eternal perdition. It is this faith that brings radical metamorphosis of a sinner into saint just as a cocoon into a butterfly. It is this faith that enabled a wretched sinner to believe in the work of Christ atoning crucifixion. Though one may not witness the melancholic excruciating pain experienced by Christ on the cross. Yet the assurance of being eternally remitted from one owns sin can be felt deep down in the heart. As the Apostle Paul wrote “We walk by faith not by sight”. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

Majesty(Here I am) - Delirious

2007-12-14T23:13:00.000-08:00

The Second coming of Christ

2007-12-13T04:16:00.000-08:00

One of the most controversial topics in the bible is “the second coming of Christ”. Many diverse hypotheses have been propounded, and yet many more can be expected on this subject. Due to different perceptions and misinterpretations, many Christian are often offended when someone tries to preach on this topic. But the big question is, “Are we supposed to remain tight lip about this subject.”Absolutely not, it is crucial for every believer to be aware of the fact that the second coming of Christ is much nearer than we anticipated.

It is true that nobody knows the exact date or time of “parousia of Christ.” As Jesus himself said that only the Father knows the time. But the bible do gives us signs or events that will occur in the last days. So let us take a brief glimpse of the different view of the Second Coming. Though it is not possible to engage and exegetically expose the whole canonical references.

Millennial Views.
These deal with question of the relationship of Christ’s return to the thousand year period of which John Writes in Revelation20:4-6

Amillennialism.This view does not expect any earthly reign of Christ between his return and the final judgment. It maintain that the thousand years are symbolic, either of the completeness of Christ reign when he returns, or of the condition of believers during the intermediate state between death and resurrection.

Postmillennialism:-This view believes that after successful preaching of the gospel, the reign of god will gradually become complete upon earth, evil will cease and peace will come. At the end of this period, which is not necessarily exactly a thousand years, Christ will return.

Premillennialism: This holds that Christ will return at the beginning of the millennium and will resurrect dead believer; those together with believers still alive at Christ’s coming, will reign with him on earth. At the end of this period of time there will be a brief flare up of evil, followed by the resurrection of unbelievers, and the final judgment. This view rests heavily upon the contention that the two resurrections in Revelation 20,being described in identical fashion , must both be bodily; and upon OT passages such description of the lion and the lamb lying down together which must occur within this period.

Tribulational views:
This relate the time of the second coming to the great tribulation of Matthew 24.

Pretribulationism:-This holds that Christ will come for the saints to remove them from the world (the rapture) before the seven years of tribulation, returning with the saints at the end of the tribulation.

Posttribulationism:-This teaches that church will not be removed from the world, but will go through the tribulation, although preserved within it.

Midtribulation:-The church will go through the first three and half years (the tribulation) but will be removed before the great tribulation (or wrath of God).

There are some more different view other than this. But what ever our view is, it is important to know that as a Christian, the lord is not slow in keeping his promises so let us stay awake and be prepared, for we don not know when our Lord Jesus Christ will return.

"Amazing Love" in japanese/English(Joey Zorina)

2007-12-03T03:39:00.000-08:00

Revival Fire

2007-10-01T04:56:00.000-07:00

"You see why you have not a revival. It is only because you don't want one. Because you are not praying for it; nor anxious for it, nor putting forth efforts for it. I appeal to your own consciences. Are you making these efforts now, to promote a revival? You know, brethren, what the truth is about it. Will you stand up and say that you have made the efforts for a revival and been disappointed--that you have cried to God, "Wilt thou not revive us?" and God would not do it? Do you wish for a revival? Will you have one? If God should ask you this moment, by an audible voice from heaven, "Do you want a revival?" would you dare to say, Yes? "Are you willing to make the sacrifices?" would you answer, Yes? "When shall it begin?" would you answer, Let it begin to-night--let it begin here--let it begin in my heart NOW? Would you dare to say so to God, if you should hear his voice to-night?”-Charles G Finney

There are thousands of Christian around the world who want revival in their church, in their family and in their country. Thousands and thousands of people are praying for it. But till now we don’t see a great genuine revival after many years of decade. Why! Is it that God doesn’t care about our prayer at all? Of course not, He does care about our prayer and He is also longing to revive His people more than we are longing to see revival. But How come, we don’t see a great mighty revival like the olden days.

Yes, it is true that a fervent prayer is the key to bring revival. I believed this with all my heart that there is no other way to ignite a revival other than through prayer. If we look back at the lives of the old revivalist, they are all a man of prayer .Welsh revivalist Evan Roberts would spend almost all of his time for praying. If he was awakening in the middle of the night, he would start praying till dawn .Charles Finney used to go to the pulpit straight from his prayer closet. They also say that John Wesley shook the world with his preaching because he first shook the heaven and hell with his prayer. John Knox was a powerful man of prayer; Queen Mary once said that she is afraid of John Knox prayer more than any army of the European countries.

In the bible itself we see many miracles that are connected with the prayers of saints. Elijah earnestly prayed that it would not rain and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years and again he prayed and the floodgate of heaven opened and gave rain. And there are also other numerous miracles that occur through prayer in the Old Testament. Coming to the New Testament, after the ascension of Jesus, we see the 120disciples praying in the upper room, when the Holy Spirit came as a rushing mighty wind and appeared to the disciples as a tongue of divided fire. When the disciples prayed, in the fourth chapter of the book of acts, their place of meeting was shaken; they were filled with the Holy Spirit and boldly proclaimed the gospel. When a man named Saul of tarsus prayed and fast for three days, God sent Ananias to heal his eye from blindness. A centurion named Cornelius with his household was saved because of his fervent prayer and giving of alms. When the Apostle peter was in a prison, the church earnestly prayed for him and God sent his angel to set him loose from the prison. In the thirteen chapter of the book of acts, when Paul and Barnabas were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit ordained them and sent them to the gentile to preach the Gospel. When apostle Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns in the prison ,there was a violent earthquake, the prison doors were open and their chain were loose ,as a result the jailer and his whole family were saved.

Prayer is the main key that will unlock the flood gate of heaven just as the book of James says “….the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” Some one also says prayer is the generator that empowers the preaching. But I want to come to the point why prayer alone will not bring revival. A fervent prayer will moved God in heaven but in order for God to move on earth, He need a channel. God is always looking for that Channel; everybody can be that channel but God will not use everybody. Because not everyone is willing to pay the price to be that channel. God is looking for a yielded vessel; He is not looking for a Golden vessel or a silver vessel but simply a yielded vessel -a surrendered heart. This is not about singing a hymn-I surrender all-very loudly in the church with tears all over the faces. It’s not about saying I have already given my heart to Jesus many years ago. A surrendered heart is a heart that want only God nothing else. When Smith wiggles worth was asked what he wanted as a Christmas gift, he replied” I want only God.” The famous Benny Hinn says he never watches a movie or he had no interest in sports but he would lock himself in his room and pray for half a day. Revivalist Evan Roberts never took part in sports, amusement or in a coarse joking but after coming home from his work, everyday he walked a mile to attend a church . The great revivalist Professor Charles Finney was completely devoted to God and lives for God and souls only, he preached against picnic, amusement, comforming to worldly dress and fashions, he teaches that a Christian enjoyment should be what pleases God.

So this is what a surrendered heart is all about -nothing but God. Many professing Christian might be shocked and will not agree with this because they are lazy and are not willing to pay the price. Many nominal Christian will also feel Condemned. But these Great men of God are the one who walk with God with power. Please understand that I am not talking about being religious or being legalistic, I am not saying that we ought to live our life like them but I am trying to point out the importance of being single minded if we want to walk in Gods high calling (phil3:4-13), it is all about carrying our cross daily and denying ourselves, we are not told to carry some other things but only cross. Remember Jesus refused to bow down and worship Lucifer when He could have gained all the glory of this world just by doing that. Many Christian think that they are balance if they are relevant to the modern world, they may be true and the Lord is not opposed to that but if Christ is not more important, and more real than any other things, then their life is full of idols- a spiritual adulterous Christian. Other things really can be a greatest distraction from our ultimate purpose. Catherine Kulhman used to say, “There is a price to pay”. And I know what she is talking about, DISCIPLINE, if anyone calls himself a disciple but does not discipline himself, he is just deceiving himself. A yielded vessel cannot be a half empty for God and half full of self-desires, passions and the world. Jesus teaches us in the parable of the sower that cares of the world will choke out the word. Many Christian need to understand that they cannot put one foot at the world and one foot at the kingdom of God. Jesus also says every kingdom that divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. Just as we cannot use a pot that is half empty to cook a food, God cannot use us when our hearts is not empty for Him. When your heart is full of other things, you are dividing the kingdom of God in your heart, how can God use such a soul that divided the kingdom of God to bring revival. God will not go for cheap vessel; He is a God of excellence. May God revive our souls; May God give us revelation to understand what it takes to walk in this High Calling? May God raised up another Charles Finney for this perverse, sinful adulterous generation. Amen.

Crusade and revival meeting in Philipines(Over 200 souls claimed to be saved)

2007-10-01T04:51:00.000-07:00

The Ministry of Joey Zorina

CONCERT IN JAPAN-Joey and Alex

2007-10-01T04:43:00.000-07:00

FOR MORE INFORMATION CHECK OUT www.gospelforallnations.page.tl

THE CROSS OR THE WORLD

2007-09-15T03:16:00.000-07:00

“May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.”-------------Apostle Paul

It looks like today churches are giving less emphasis on"carrying the cross”. The question that we need to ask ourselves is how do we understand the cross? I am sure for many Christians it is all about Christ dying for atoning sacrifice of our sin. Well, this is true, but, we also need to understand that the cross is a place of death and the beginning of God in our life. It is not enough to know this message in our head as a theory or a doctrine, but it is something that we all the believers have to experience in our life in order for us to be transformed into the image of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death."(Philippians 3:10)Can we really be transforming into the image of resurrected Christ without experiencing the death of Christ in the cross. The Death of Christ for us is dying to sin, dying to self, dying to flesh. Can we really put on the new man when we still embraced and wrapped ourselves with the old man? The new man is Christ himself and the old man is our sinful nature. There is no true repentance when we don’t have revelation of the cross in our heart. That is why we are seeing great men and women of God back sliding again and again.
We heard enough of how much God loves us, we heard enough of who we are in Christ, we heard enough of Preacher preaching on How God has a wonderful pan for us. But we need to keep on preaching the cross until we started to see the transforming power of God changes our sheep. We cannot really expect to see transformation in our church without helping them understand the message of Cross.
H Richard Niebuhr once said (regarding the teaching in some churches )"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” This is so true to some teaching of the post modern churches, the devil has perverted our understanding of Grace. Some of the church would give an alter call without preaching the message of the cross . Please, I am not ignorant of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. But we should not forget the commission to preach the gospel, if the Holy Spirit were to do everything what s the point of having the fivefold ministry .If we can enter the kingdom of God without the cross, the horrible death of Christ on the cross will be in vain. Remember, Jesus says that unless a corn of wheat falls and die, it cannot bear much fruits. We need to realize that we cannot grow from glory to glory until or unless we started to conform to the death of Christ on the cross. And we need the Holy Spirit to help us to do that, but the flesh lust against the Spirit (referring to HS), so that is where “carrying the cross’ comes in. old habits ,old passion ,selfish ambition ,old desires, pride,etc .Everything that belong to self(flesh)will hinders the Holy Spirit(living water) to water the Tree of life to bear fruits in our life. So carry the cross, if you want to see God best in your life. May the Spirit of God open your eyes to understand the cross. Amen.