Continuing from my last post, what is the quintessential nature and essence of love?
To the apostle John, God is Love.[1] But, what does this mean? For me, this means that in the Being of God, there is a dynamic eternal relationship of love and loving among Father, Son and Spirit. This eternal exchange of giving, receiving and responding in love to One Another is within the true Nature and Essence of Who God is, TRIUNE. God’s ThreeOness, ever in loving relationship, One with Another, is the complete and perfect expression of the nature and essence of love. For me, I believe, this is why God is love. As God, Triune, is love, love also Is, arising from the Triune relationship of God. This means that love exists, because, out of and from the ThreeOne relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. Love is, only because the Triune relationship is genuinely real. Relationships are real and not illusory imaginings, for, relationships have eternally existed in the eternal Triune Being of God. If God is not Triune but only One, then, only self loving, loving of One’s Self is eternally with and in God. There is no eternal, real and true love for, with and in Another. However, if God is more than One and yet also One, TRIUNE, as revealed in, through and by the Incarnate Son and Spirit, then, true, real and eternal loving relationships, not only for one’s self but also another is revealed to be inseparable from, and essentially in, the Nature, Essence and Being of God. For me, this eternal relational happening of union and communion within the Triune, is, presently, the best matrix by which I comprehend and relate to God’s ThreeOneness, in loving nature and being. In union, the Three, Father, Son and Spirit are One. In communion, the ONE GOD, is also Three: Father, Son and Spirit.[2] Drawing from this, we can perceive that the completeness and perfection of love not only requires love to and for one’s self, but also love towards all others. This arises from the Triune loving relationship, in union and communion, jointly and severally, loving One’s self, loving all the Others as much as loving One’s self and loving and receiving love, simultaneously, in similar manner, from all the Others[3] This Triune completeness and perfection of love and loving is the glory of Triune God in eternity: ““Father, those whom you have given to me—I want that those also may be with me where I am, in order that they may see my glory that you have given me because (in that)[4] you loved me before the foundation of the world(i.e.the universe)[5].”[6] Son’s glory was that of loving union and communion with Father in eternity. Son’s desire was to share this glory with us: “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one— I in them, and you in me, in order that they may be completed in one, so that the world may know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me”[7]. Son, even in Incarnation, remains ever One with and in Father.[8] To see Incarnate Son is to also see Eternal or Everlasting Father.[9] As Isaiah had prophesied: “For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”[10] Spirit is also, in union and communion, jointly and severally, present with Father and Son, in all. For it is in and through Spirit, in union and communion, with Father and Son, in love, that all, including love and loving, happens.[11] Spirit is the Happening of Triune God, through Whom, Triune God, “I Am that I Am”, lovingly happens.[12] Spirit expresses God to us and in us.[13] [1] 1 John 4: 8,16. “Ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν’” [2] Please refer to my earlier posts on relationships. See also the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 where "the Lord (YHWH) is ONE and Lord (YHWH) GOD (Elohim-Plural) is more than one. [3] Loving your neighbor as yourself, an expression of love, seen in this light, reveals and points us to the completeness of love within the Triune relationship. [4] For me, should be more accurately translated as ”(in) that” - See Strong’s G3754 ὅτι hóti, hot'-ee; neuter of G3748 as conjunction; demonstrative, that (sometimes redundant); causative, because:—as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that. [5] Strong's G2889 – kosmos : 3. the world, i. e. the universe [6] John 17:24 Lexham English Bible (LEB) [7] John 17:20-23 [8] John10:30, John17:11 [9] John 14:9-11, Isa 9:6 [10] Isaiah 9:6 LEB [11] Genesis 1:1-3. John 4:24. 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 [12] Read Luke 1:34-35 in conjunction with John 1:14 and we see Spirit’s role and involvement in making the Incarnation, the Word becoming a human being, a true and genuine reality, lovingly happen. [13] John 14:17 - Statement in a several context. In Christ Jesus, in the joint, Spirit is not only with us but also in us.
3 Comments
“Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees[1], the Pharisees[2] got together.
One of them, an expert of the Law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”[3] Presumably, countless debates, questions and ponderings, through the centuries, by teachers of the Law and their acolytes, had yielded no one settled answer. The purpose (test) of the question, intentionally posed to Jesus, was to reignite this debate and show Jesus up. Immediately and unequivocally, Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.’[4] This is the first and great commandment.”[5] Jesus’ answer was to focus his hearers back to their covenantal relationship that their ancestors had made with God at Sinai, by referencing words in the first part of the Shema[6]. Having addressed the great commandment as the first, Jesus went beyond the question of the great commandment, and followed through with an insight that he hoped his hearers would consider, grasp and embrace. “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”[7] And in case some would think that after the second would come the third and so forth, Jesus ended his discourse with this summation: ““On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Note the recorded verb ‘hang’ (κρέμανται –kremantai), with its meaning of ‘be suspended from’[8]. The picture in my mind is one of two beams of wood joined together (the two commandments) with two pots (the law pot and the prophets pot) being suspended from them. The beams are above the pots. The purpose of the two commandments was to direct the people into the path of love and loving God and each other, such being above all the Law and the Prophets (prophetic utterances). These two great commandments were but preparatory tools introducing, guiding, teaching and constraining Israel to learn to love God and each other within the law, to love under the law. Lest we forget, when these commandments and the Law were given, Israel had just come out of Egypt, having been a nation of slaves for more than a couple of centuries.[9] Yet, slavery into freedom into a covenantal relationship took only a few months[10]. As such, Israel needed to be guided, like a child, through this paradigm shift towards being a special treasure to God above all peoples, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation[11]. Hence the Law and the Prophets were given to Israel. Nevertheless, being commandments, love and loving were obligations that had to be fulfilled. Nothing could change the fact and reality that, in the first, Israel had to love, rather than having chosen freely and willingly to love. Even if at a later stage, Israel chose to love, willingly and freely, from the first, having been commanded to love, Israel cannot but love. Israel under the two commandments had a duty to love and loving. Does it mean that not loving, even for the briefest moment, Israel sins? In respect of the second command, the perimeters of love and loving were relative and easily defined; how you would respond and treat yourself in love in any given moment. Expressing love and loving in the first and great commandment is the enigma. Is love and loving expressed and found in the strict observance of every letter of the Law, including keeping exacting standards of measurement, weight, colour, material, placement and burnt offerings and sacrifices? What does loving with all or the whole of your heart mean? What does loving with all or the whole of your soul mean? What does loving with all or the whole of your mind mean? What does loving with all or the whole of your might mean? Only by loving, in the moment, with all and the whole of heart, soul, mind and might would one fulfil the great commandment. Does it mean then, that not being able to love with the whole of any one of them, in any moment, would already mean failure to fulfil the great commandment, in that moment? Does failure then mean sinning? Could this have been in the mind of Paul the Apostle, a former Pharisee when he wrote: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.[12] Is there a way out of this most onerous commandment? I believe so. [1] Sadducee, Hebrew Tzedoq, plural Tzedoqim, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70. Not much is known with certainty of the Sadducees’ origin and early history, but their name may be derived from that of Zadok, who was high priest in the time of kings David and Solomon. Ezekiel later selected this family as worthy of being entrusted with control of the Temple, and Zadokites formed the Temple hierarchy down to the 2nd century BC. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population. They came under the influence of Hellenism, tended to have good relations with the Roman rulers of Palestine, and generally represented the conservative view within Judaism. While their rivals, the Pharisees, claimed the authority of piety and learning, the Sadducees claimed that of birth and social and economic position. During the long period of the two parties’ struggle—which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD—the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood. The Sadducees and Pharisees were in constant conflict with each other, not only over numerous details of ritual and the Law but most importantly over the content and extent of God’s revelation to the Jewish people. The Sadducees refused to go beyond the written Torah (first five books of the Bible) and thus, unlike the Pharisees, denied the immortality of the soul, bodily resurrection after death, and the existence of angelic spirits. For the Sadducees, the Oral Law—i.e., the vast body of post-biblical Jewish legal traditions—meant next to nothing. By contrast, the Pharisees revered the Torah but further claimed that oral tradition was part and parcel of Mosaic Law. Because of their strict adherence to the Written Law, the Sadducees acted severely in cases involving the death penalty, and they interpreted literally the Mosaic principle of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”). Though the Sadducees were conservative in religious matters, their wealth, their haughty bearing, and their willingness to compromise with the Roman rulers aroused the hatred of the common people. As defenders of the status quo, the Sadducees viewed the ministry of Jesus with considerable alarm and apparently played some role in his trial and death. Their lives and political authority were so intimately bound up with Temple worship that after Roman legions destroyed the Temple, the Sadducees ceased to exist as a group, and mention of them quickly disappeared from history. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sadducee The Sadducees, ……. refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah—i.e., the Written Law. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee [2] Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 BCE–70 CE). Their insistence on the binding force of oral tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought. When the Mishna (the first constituent part of the Talmud) was compiled about 200 CE, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law…The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabean revolt, about 165–160 BCE; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees—i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. The Pharisees,….. believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law—i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law: men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit. When in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more-acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee [3] Revised Standard Version [4] Compare Deutoronomy 6:5 “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” 1. The Hebrew (Masoretic Text) version of Deuteronomy 6:5 states: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (מְאֹד-m@`od - might, force, muchness and abundance [See Strong’s H3966]).” 2. The Greek Septuagint (by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton based on the Vaticanus) records Deuteronomy 6:5 as: “Love the Lord your God with all your mind(ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου) and with all your soul and with all your strength(δυνάμεώς).” Elpenor’s and other versions have the words with all your heart(ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας), with all your soul and with all your might(δυνάμεώς).” 3. No recorded version in and of the Old Testament has verbatim the words: “all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” 4. In Mark’s gospel (Mk 12:30), it was recorded that the question asked by the teacher of the law was: “ Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus’ reply “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength(ἰσχύος)”, has echoes and elements of Deuteronomy 6:5 but still not in verbatim. 5. In both the recorded replies of Jesus to which is the first and greatest commandment, it seems Jesus took partial elements from both the Hebrew and Brenton’s Greek versions of Deuteronomy 6:5. Or, is there another Text of the Old Testament that was in existence as Jesus would have probably answered in Hebrew – cf Luke10:25-28 (Even the lawyer’s question and answer (probably in Hebrew) Luke 10:25-28, affirmed by Jesus, has no verbatim equivalent in the Old Testament, and contains elements from both the Hebrew and Brenton’s Greek versions of Deuteronomy 6:5. Is this pointing again to another Hebrew Text that was being used?) [5] Matthew 22:37,38 Revised Standard Version [6] The Shema is one of only two prayers that are specifically commanded in Torah (the other is Birkat Ha-Mazon -- grace after meals). It is the oldest fixed daily prayer in Judaism, recited morning and night since ancient times. It consists of three biblical passages, two of which specifically say to speak of these things "when you lie down and when you rise up." www.jewfaq.org/shemaref.html. In its entirety, the Shema consists of three paragraphs: Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41. [7] Matthew 22:39 New International Version. Leviticus 19:18 “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Revised Standard Version. [8] Oxford Dictionary [9] Take a look at “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt? by David Wright on July 5, 2010 https://answersingenesis.org” [10] Exodus 12:6, Exodus 19:1,2 [11] Exodus 19:5,6 [12] Romans 3:23 New International Version We do not like to serve. We prefer to be served. In like fashion, our preference is not to be the lowest person on the employment ladder. We aspire to rise and be leaders, supervisors, CEOs, with people and subordinates working under and serving us. We aspire to be great and receive the accolades of others. Our notion of greatness and success is determined by how high we are in the hierarchy of our industry, profession, social, economic or political status. Notwithstanding that countless others have supported and contributed to our achievements and success, we revel in the acclamations given to us, acquiescing that it is primarily through our efforts and by being who we are that we are deserving of these accolades and recognition.
We see this in sports; the gold medal winners, the top teams, the top managers; in religion: the heads of the various faiths and traditions; in politics: prime ministers and presidents; in industry: Chief executive officers and entrepreneurs; the lists goes on. This has always been the way of our world. In our history, one person held a completely different view. He was a different take of this, the man Christ Jesus: God becoming flesh, as a human being. When his disciples were vying as to who would be the greatest among them, to sit at his right and left hand in his glory,[1] Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Then, “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant[2], and whoever wants to be first must be slave[3] of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served[4], but to serve[5], and to give his life as a ransom for many.”[6] The Apostle Paul understood this mind of Christ with the following description: “who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery[7] to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation[8], taking the form of a bondservant[9], and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross”,[10] when he exhorted “ Let this mind[11] be in you as was also in Christ Jesus. To have this mind[12] in us as was also in Christ Jesus means to seek our affection on and to interest ourselves with similar attitude in focus, desire and passions, to what he did. However, to begin to grow into having this mind, we must first choose and will to make it our treasure: “for where your treasure is, there your heart [your wishes, your desires; that on which your life centers] will be also.”[13] If we are honest with ourselves we will recognise that we live this truth each moment of our lives. For whatever we have chosen to be our treasure has been or is now the focus and centre of our attention, desires, passions, urges, efforts and energy. It applies without exception, whether person, ambition, pursuit or thing. We will inevitably see our lives gravitate towards our treasure. A way to recognise our treasure is identifying ‘the what’: person, desire or thing that is consuming and occupying our minds and thoughts. What was Son’s treasure causing Son to have this mind, focus, intense passionate interest? [1] Mark 10:35-39 ESV [2] Greek διάκονος diákonos probably from an obsolete διάκω diákō (to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties. Strong’s NT 1249 [3] Greek δοῦλος doûlos; a slave, devoted to another with disregard to one’s own interest. Strong’s NT 1401 [4] See 2 above, to be an attendant, to wait on another like a waiter. [5] See 2 above, to be an attendant, to wait on another like a waiter [6] Mark 10:42-45 ESV [7] Philippians 2:6 Literally may be translated as “not thinking that being equal with God is robbing or plundering something from God. The phrase is usually translated to convey the following meaning: did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it] Amplified Bible. [8] Philippians 2:7 emptied Himself of His privileges Literally “emptied Himself” ἑαυτὸν himself ἐκένωσεν to empty, make empty. Strong’s 2758 [9] Greek δοῦλος doûlos; a slave, devoted to another with disregard to one’s own interest. Strong’s NT 1401 [10] Philippians 2:5-8 NKJV [11] Philippians 2:6 φρονείσθω singular in Textus Receptus or φρονεῖτε plural in Morphological GNT from Greek φρονέω phronéō: meaning to direct one's mind to a thing, to seek, to strive for, to have understanding, be wise, intensively, to interest oneself in. Different from mind in 1 Corinthians 2:16 νοῦς nous, the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining. Strong’s NT 5426 and 3563 compare [12] See 11 above [13] Matthew 6:21 Amplified Bible The overlapping lenses of “Homoousion – sameness of essence and nature” and “inter-relational dynamics of joint and several”, have enabled us to understand, with a little more clarity, the Triune Being and inner-relations of and in the One God. At the same time, other attributes of God are brought to focus.
One of them, I dare say, is that God is able to have new, authentic and experiential actualities. An explanation is warranted here. Creation, contingent on God, will always be and remain only creation.[1] God was never a man before he became a man.[2] It would be proper then to say, that in becoming a man, a human, a creature of creation, a created being, God had become something that he was not. Becoming man can be considered to be a new, authentic and experiential actuality for God. As such, God with us, in God becoming man, has immense and momentous implications. For God, it means that within the actual Being of Triune God, there is now also a man, a created being, in whom the fullness of the Godhead (Deity) dwells, fully occupies and lives, inhabits bodily[3]. Where there were only Three, now it can, properly, also be said that with, in and through the one person of Christ Jesus, being “homoousion – sameness of essence and nature” with God according to Divinity and “homoousion – sameness of essence and nature” with us according to humanity, there is now a man, human nature, in the actual Being of God. “Christ crucified” is pregnant with this meaning. No wonder, to the Jews it was a stumbling block[4]. They could not conceive and accept that Christ Jesus, the man, that they crucified[5], could, at the same time, also, be God. For the Greeks, who honoured and pursued wisdom, this is foolishness as what is divine is divine and what is human is human. They could conceive in their mythology demigods, entities that resulted from the union of gods and humans. But God becoming human, becoming this man Jesus who was crucified, this they could not comprehend. Hence, complete and utter foolishness as far as they were concerned. Both Jews and Greeks distinguished between divinity and humanity and rightly so. This several approach could only have provided an either/or lens through which to relate and view Christ Jesus. If only they had applied the joint and several lens, they would have caught a glimpse of Christ in actuality, being the power and wisdom of God.[6] A revelation of God in the Son becoming man would be that God also grows experientially, for until the Son became a man, God did not know what it was to be a man. [1] Acts 17:28 [2] Numbers 23:19 The prophet Balaam in Numbers 23:19 also asserted this understanding of God not being a man “God is not a man that He should lie.” Note that this was before God became flesh, a man, in the person of Christ Jesus. [3] Colossians 2:9 [4] 1 Corinthians 1:23 [5] Matthew 20:19, Mark 15:13, Luke 23:21, John 19:6 [6] 1 Corinthians 1:24 Jesus - God with us, Christ in us: The New Covenant
God has always been with us, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” [1] Psalm 139 extols: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, and the light around me will be night, even the darkness is not dark to You, and the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You.”[2] If God has always been with us, within an existential and relational paradigm, then what, if any, is the difference that is to be found in the “God with us”, the new covenant, the new relationship? What is new? This depends on who Jesus of Nazareth is, and our answer to the latter of the two questions that Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?”[3], “Who do you say that I am?”[4] Peter’s answer as recorded in Matthew[5] was: “ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[6] Martha’s answer in John’s Gospel was “I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming to the world.”[7] Other statements made of Jesus in the Gospels include: Emmanuel-God with us,[8]Jesus Christ, Son of God,[9] Son of Man[10] Word ..with God.. was God…became flesh,”[11] “John the Baptist, ..Elijah, …Jeremiah, …one of the prophets”[12]. The answers are varied and unending. They evolve and change, even as perceptions, understandings, relationships and experiences, grow and change, for each of us, respectively. Many in the early church struggled as they grappled with this. Giving an answer is one thing. But what does our answer really mean? The extent of our ability to express with clarity what our answer really means is one measure of our understanding of our answer and consequent significance, ramifications, impact and consequences. Clarity will also enable us to better communicate, reveal and share with greater simplicity our thoughts and actions with others. Many views and perceptions, as to Who Jesus, are also found in the historical records of creeds and writings in the early church. Though, the overwhelming answers were that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” and ‘Word. Who was God, became flesh”, the meanings that were attached to these answers were not the same. [1] Acts 17:28 [2] Psalm 139: [3] Mark 8:27 [4] Mark 8:29 [5] Matthew 16:16 [6] Mark 8:29 only records the answer as “You are the Christ”. [7] John 11:27 [8] Matthew 1:23 [9] Mark 1:1 [10] Luke 5:24 [11] John1:1,14 [12] Matthew 16:14 With this in mind, the singularity and plurality of God may be addressed and, hopefully, accepted in the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 and the encounter that Abraham had with the LORD in Genesis18:1-33. “In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.[1] “This is the genealogical annals of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”.[2] “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”[3] There is only One God. This God is affirmed as being One in the opening of the Shema (or the “Saying”), a central teaching in Judaism: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”.[4] Prima facie, references to plurality of this one God, who is also one, can be inferred in the creation narratives by the words, “Let us make humankind”, “in our image, in our likeness”, “male and female he created them”. It has been advocated by many that the plural “us” and “our” here is akin to the royal prerogative used by sovereigns in ancient times when addressing themselves. However, this cannot explain the distinctiveness and separateness of male and female, in humankind, made as image and likeness of God. This can only infer and suggest plurality in the singularity or one of God. Adam acknowledged this male and female distinctiveness in humanity, even as he also acknowledged that the distinctiveness has a common source.[5] “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”[6] The word rib can also mean side.[7] Hence, the phrase “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” makes sense if God took a side of Adam to make woman. Immediately after Adam’s acknowledgement, God pronounced[8]: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and join to his wife and they shall be one flesh.” – Two flesh becoming One flesh origination. This Two flesh becoming One flesh simple joint relationship can in some sense be viewed as an embryonic form of the joint and several bonding. Though the two are no longer two but one, yet in order to be one there must be the two and the distinctiveness of each in the two is acknowledged and accepted. What has not been fleshed out, however, is acknowledgement that any one of the two is able to act for and on behalf of all, and as all. [1] Genesis 1:1 Hebrew Text: Westminister Leningrad Codex with vowels – Scripture 4 All Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT), The Stone Edition Tanach [2] Genesis 2:4 Hebrew Text: Westminister Leningrad Codex with vowels – Scripture 4 All [3] Genesis 1:26,27 New International Version [4] Deuteronomy 6:4 [5] Genesis 2;21-23 [6] Genesis 2:22,23 [7] Hebrew צֵלָע tsêlâʻ, tsay-law'; or (feminine) צַלְעָה tsalʻâh Strong’s Definitions H6763; from H6760; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, literally (of a person). [8] Genesis2:24, Matthew 19:5 Within the relational matrix, we fundamentally and dynamically relate to each other in 5 ways. The extent and depth of trust and intimacy that we have with and for each other is also reflected in these 5 manners in which we relate one to another. The first way in which we relate with each other is severally. As an adjective, describing the manner of relating, this word severally means respectively, individually, particularly, specifically, differently and separately. We relate and treat each other as unique and distinct individuals. We recognise that who I am is different from who you are. All that I am and all that I have belongs to me even as all that you are and all that you have belongs to you. In essence, what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. To many of us this is the normal and default mode whereby we relate to the majority of the people that we meet and come into contact with everyday; the strangers that we pass by, our colleagues and others in our workplace, services providers to us and so forth. To relate to each other severally is to recognise the authenticity of our own identity and the authenticity of the identity of others. In this respect, it is good. Relating to each other severally affirms the integrity and wholeness of who we are as a person and the integrity of others as persons, in their own right, at the same time. We also relate to each other in a common manner. Though we are several, ‘what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours’, we recognise that sometimes we have shared and overlapping interests. As such, there are times when we choose to pool resources by contributing part of who we are or what we own into a common pool or venture so that parties in common may benefit from such pooling and sharing of resources. At the same time, the downside or lost to us is limited to the contribution that we have put into the common pool: our energy, time, money and the likes. Relating because and sharing of a common stake enhances and deepens our understanding and appreciation of giving and receiving. We give a little of what is ours and receive a little of what is others within the sharing in the common. We are brought into a new relationship and experience of being fellow stakeholders with others in proportion to the limited contribution that each brings into the common. Being common shareholders in a limited company is one such relationship. In common, a portion of ‘what is mine and what is yours’, is now being shared in a common pool( the company) and treated as what is ours, in proportion to the contribution that we have made and agreed to. What each person contributed continues to be recognised as that person’s distinct and divisible interest in the common. Another case is when two or more persons hold property as ‘tenants in common’, in equal or unequal shares. A representative element is found in the next relationship. This is when we relate to someone as a representative of another or be the representative of another. Here, a person(Representative) assumes the role of a person chosen or appointed by another(Appointee) to act or speak for another or others when relating to others. One instance is an ambassador of a country; a person appointed to represent a country in a forum or place. The ambassador does not act or speak for himself as an individual. He acts or speaks for and on behalf of the nation he is representing. Another illustration is an attorney under a Power of Attorney; a person appointed, given the authority and recognised as having the authority to act for and on behalf of the giver or appointee of the Power or Attorney. The attorney is representing his Appointee and acts for and on behalf of his Appointee, as if he is the Appointee. In relating to a representative, we are not relating to the representative as his own person in his own right, but as a different person, the person he is representing. Being a representative, I am not who I am, my actions are not mine. In a sense I assume the identity of my Appointee and my actions are the actions of my Appointee. It is only when I am not acting as a representative am I, severally, my own person, and responsible personally for my actions. As a Christian, I believe God is One.
I also affirm and confess God to be Father, Son and Spirit. For a major part of my Christian journey, I have found much difficulty and struggled with this belief and confession that God is One and yet Three, Three and yet One. For over 40 years in my journey, whenever I raised questions and queried on this Triune Being and Nature of God, the answers offered inevitably ended with it being an inexplicable Mystery to be accepted and affirmed in faith, by the faithful. This has been told to me time and time again by well-intentioned Sunday school teachers, bible study leaders, pastors, preachers that I had come into contact with. Theologians with their opinions and using theological terms* also failed to aid me in comprehending, in an experiential manner, this Mystery. Like a child however, I accepted and trusted their opinions and advice and carried on in my journey, believing in, but without understanding and comprehending experientially how, God can be One and Three. The resultant for me was that during forty over years of my Christian journey, I remained unclear and confused, as to Who is this God Whom I believe in and confess to be. As such, whenever this issue arose in discussions with others of similar or diverse persuasions and beliefs, my faith in my God would be tried as I could not explain to others in a reasonable manner the Triune Being and Nature of my God. How could I, when I had no clarity, was confused and could not grasp and comprehend it? I had always taken the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 22:37 seriously: “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” Not being able with clarity to comprehend with my mind the Triune Being and Nature of God had a constraining and restraining impact on my love for God, in heart, soul, mind and being. There was an emptiness within me that needed to be addressed if I was to be whole in loving God. I felt sad with this feeling of lack of wholeness, in loving and relating to God, time and time again, whenever I was challenged to give an explanation as to how God can be Three and One at the same moment. Yet, notwithstanding all of these, I considered myself a Christian and plodded along believing in this Triune God. Arising from the lack of clarity, confusion and lack of wholeness on my part, my relationship with God had periods of distinction. As a young Christian, I tended to relate to God in a distinctive discriminative manner: Father as Father, Son as Son, Spirit as Spirit. They were Three Individuals to me. They were Three Gods with distinct personalities and roles. I could not comprehend or understand how all at once, Three could be One or are One. I formed and had a distinctive and separate relationship with each One. Father was the One who gave and sent the Son into the world. Spirit filled the Son at His baptism by John the Baptist. Son was the one who died on the cross at Calvary. I saw three distinctive Personalities having distinctive actions and roles in the Scriptures. It was only natural relating with each One separately, while suspending my deep-rooted lack of clarity and confusion as to their Triune Being and Nature. I just accepted Each as God. For all intents and purposes, I was relating to Three Gods. It did not help when a number of preachers, pastors and teachers that I came into contact with used and applied the analogy of father, mother and child in the family - three individuals, one family – to try to explain how God can be Three and yet One at the same time. For me, this analogy does not address how three individuals can be One Being. Rather, this illustration groups three individuals under the collective noun of ‘family’. They remained three individuals – Three Gods. As such, issues and angst soon arose within me. I found myself asking questions: Would either of the other Two be jealous if I spend more time with or pray more often to One more than the Others? How do I find an equilibrium treating Each of Them equally when for different needs and purposes, I approach a different One? Like a juggler, how do I juggle these Three relationships to maintain harmony and rest in my relationship with Each and all of Them and They with me. How do They relate One to Another? These tensions were continually present in me in my early years as a Christian. The next distinct period commenced when I was introduced to the writings and sayings of the desert fathers, Christian mystics and as I ventured into and practised Christian meditation and prayer. I also read books and materials of writers of other faiths and persuasions. I became acquainted with individuals and authors, who in their writings described their experiences as “being lost in and one with God”. In letting go of self, many describe experiencing “bliss” and union and oneness with God, where many of them expressly stated or impliedly suggested that the distinction and barrier between self and God ceased to exist. There were many instances where passages of Scripture were used to augment the point that we can be One with God. “I and the Father are ONE” (JN 10:30) “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us” (JN 17:21), and other similar ones were referenced for this purpose. These writings and practices influenced me to slowly relate to God as One. In doing so, the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit subtly disappeared. I began to relate to Father, Son and Spirit as expressions of the One God: The One God manifesting and relating to me as Father, Son or Spirit. As I related to God in this non-discriminatory manner, I felt that it did not matter as to whom I was relating to. I was just relating to God. Father, Son and Spirit are just different conduits through which I approach God, Who is One. Opinions of God revealing Himself as Father in the Old Testament, Son in the New Testament and Spirit at Pentecost seem logical to me. The terms Father, Son and Spirit are just ways, roles that God takes or masks that God puts on to communicate and have a relationship with me. The predominant analogy that influenced me during this non discriminatory phase is that God is like the three states of water:- One God(H2O),Three expressions or states( solid (ice), liquid(water), gas(vapour)). It made sense to me. However, other questions arose. Does it mean that there are many ways to God? Is Jesus the only way? If I am one with God and lose myself in God, do I continue to exist or become part of God or have I always been a part of God? If so, is there any real distinction between Jesus and me? If there is no distinction between Father, Son and Spirit, then how does one explain Father giving and sending Son? Who became man, Son or Father? Does it really matter? When Son died at the cross did Father die too? Who did Son commit his spirit to at the cross? The list goes on… I found myself knowing less and less as to Who is my God. It affected my state of being to become like a pendulum swinging from discriminatory distinctions( Three Gods) to non discriminatory distinctions( ONE God- Three States; one with God), poles apart separated by a mystery that had to be embraced and accepted by faith. Unresolved tensions remained and it became increasingly difficult to cope with the pressure of relating to a Mysterious God without comprehension. I continued having difficulty loving and relating in wholeness, in heart, soul, mind and being to a God shrouded in Mystery. But isn’t this Mystery supposed to have been unravelled in the Person of Jesus, the Son Who became a human being, to enable us to know God in a real and authentic relationship? We all love a good mystery. We find great satisfaction when we solve them. The more tantalisingly difficult they are, the greater the sense of achievement when we unravel them.
We also love receiving presents, and the more well-received a present is, the greater the value and importance we ascribe to the giver and the gift. Paul the apostle was captivated by a mystery. He referred to it as a mystery that had been hidden from ages and generations. Although many great minds have pondered over this mystery, as far as Paul was concerned, the answer to this mystery had eluded everyone, including himself, until he encountered Jesus on the Damascus road. The mystery concerns the real reason why humanity exists and our place in relation to the Creator and the Creator’s caring and mindfulness for man. The Psalmists recognised this mystery when they asked of the Creator: “What is mankind that You are mindful^ of them, human beings that You care^ for them?” Psalm 8:4 “Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?” Psalm 144:3 The Writer of Job recorded Job’s thoughts on the matter as: “What is mankind that you make so much of them, that you give them so much attention?” Even knowing and experiencing the mindful caring of the Divine did not assuage their desire and urge to question to know “Why”. Somehow, ingrained in our human nature is a persistent urge to seek for meaning, significance and value for our existence. We are constantly driven, consciously or subconsciously, to find an authentic answer to the “why” and purpose of our existence. Rick Warren’s ‘A Purpose Driven Life’, a New York Bestseller book, was an effort to address this issue. We intrinsically feel something missing or lacking within our humanity. Without knowing the “why” and purpose of our existence, many of us break under and succumb to the loads placed on us in life. Victor Frankl, Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, Holocaust survivor and founder of logotherapy, a form of existential analysis, understood and recognised this. In his best selling book “Man's Search for Meaning”, he quotes Nietzsche: “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” The “Why “ will always undergird and strengthen the “How”. For Paul, the hidden mystery or counsel concerning humankind was that God had conceived and purposed in eternity, within the Triune Communion, that the Son would became a man - Christ Jesus. Father’s will, Son’s choice and Spirit’s activity determined the inevitable predestined nature of this happening taking place, in the fullness of time, in our human history, in our humanity. Concerning Christ, (in whom the divine and human natures are so joined in hypostatic union without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation, in one person in the incarnation, that it may be said that the person of Jesus is truly and properly God and truly and properly man), Son, who is now a man, Paul wrote: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in* him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by(through)** him, and for*** him” All things are created in, by and through the Son. All things were also created for the Son who was to become a man, a human being. It follows then that creation was not only for the Son as the Eternal Son, but also for the Son who has now become a man, one with us in our humanity and one in us in our humanity. Although Triune God had to create before humanity can come into being, Triune God created that Son could become a human being. To be in eternal union with created humanity seems to be the impetus for creating and creation. It is easy to be overwhelmed by all the laws regulating how we should relate to one another. Yet, combing each letter to find the right way to live only leads us further away from the law’s true spirit.
In fact, we best fulfill the law when we live not by the law, but by the Spirit. Galatians 5:22-23 reveals this hidden truth, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such there is no law.” The Jews were given the Law and the Prophets to guide them on what relationships were right and wrong between themselves and God and between each other. However, the teachers of the law became so fixated on interpretations of this written code that they lost sight of the virtuous, intimate relationships the Law and the Prophets were meant to grow. If we too look only at righteousness according to the law, it wouldn’t make sense that Jesus should heal (by working) on the Sabbath, not condemn the woman caught in adultery and dare to forgive sins without the requisite sacrifice! It would be confusing to hear him say in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Like the Pharisees, we neglect justice, mercy, faithfulness and the love of God (Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42) when we look for righteousness in others according to a written code and decide that we have done enough when each checkbox has been ticked. We measure and value everyone by our performance and compliance according to our strict observance of the law. We fail to recognize that the love of God, expressed in mercy and faithfulness, is how we should experience and receive God in our lives. In like manner, we can then and are to share these virtues with people whenever we relate to them. As we have freely and undeservedly received, we can and are to freely and undeservedly give. As in Matthew 10:7-18, “proclaim the Kingdom of the heavens has already come…freely you have received, freely give.” When we act with righteousness in the Spirit, we show everyone around us what is meant by the greatest commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself.” Truly then, all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:34-40) Importantly, the righteousness in the Spirit begins not when the action is done but from the moment we choose to do it. For it is written: “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” Love is the heart and reins of the eternal Triune relationship. Love is the expression of the Triune God. Love was there even before the Law or the Prophets. As such, the law and the prophets hang on and are under love. Jesus said; “I have loved you even as the Father has loved me. Remain in my love.” (John 15:9) Then, he commanded his disciples to love one another as he had loved them. His command was a paradox – to love as he loved, not under a command. His love is as Father has loved him, freely, out of choice, not out of obligation or under a command. This fully expresses the virtues of the Son of God who became the Son of man. Having no obligation or law on him to love us, Jesus freely and willingly chose to love us anyway. In so doing, he showed Father’s own choice in loving him and in loving us first. The function of the Law and the Prophets is to point us to and remind us of this choice God has made to love, and the choice God makes every moment to love us with goodness, faithfulness and truth. When we join ourselves with Jesus and grow into his life, we will bear the fruit of the Spirit and live more freely, graciously and righteously than we ever have. Choose freely and join Jesus in receiving and expressing love. Bear the fruit of the Spirit. Against such, there is no law. |
WILFRED YEO
Categories
All
|
Proudly powered by Weebly