Psalm 58 

In 1804, in order to pre-empt French occupation of Tasmania, Lieutenant-Colonel David Collins was sent, with accompanying soldiers and convicts, to occupy the island. However, for thousands of years the island had already been settled by Aboriginal inhabitants. Indeed, prior to 1804, when ships had made brief stays in Tasmania’s sheltered bays, Europeans had often described the Aborigines as living idyllic lives, much in line with Rousseau’s view of indigenous peoples as ‘noble savages.’

The British government told Collins to do everything in his power to ensure harmonious relationships with “the natives.” But this proved impossible once the function of white settlement in Tasmania changed. For initially this served merely as “a contained coastal outpost designed to ward off rival empires.” However, it gradually became the granary for the Sydney settlement.

In Tasmania arable areas were limited. Land commissioners began to divide up this land, with the government issuing grants for farming. But this was also the very land on which the livelihood of Aborigines depended for game and other foodstuffs. It was therefore inevitable that the Aborigines would resist and attack the British invaders.

Now the earlier descriptions of Aborigines, which had been mostly positive, were increasingly replaced by characterisations that demonised them. They were compared with orangutans. It was said to be a disgrace to the human race to call them Men. As Day observes, supplanting societies in seeking to justify their dispossession of others typically dehumanise indigenous inhabitants. Often this is because such societies “are intent on unleashing a savagery of their own to achieve it.”

The motive for dispossessing others, as in the Tasmanian case, is often greed. But dispossessors like to kid themselves that their motives are more noble than this. So in 1830 before the US Congress President Andrew Jackson argued that the decision to “place a dense and civilised population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters” was actually being done for the good of the Indians themselves - to prevent conflict with the whites and giving them the opportunity to become civilised themselves.

As I was reflecting on these and other historical examples of the rationalisation of human evil I could not but help find a parallel between this and the abominable attitudes and behaviour currently finding expression in a church community with which I have dealings. There some members of the host, largely white and small Anglo-Celtic congregation, are treating with contempt members of the non-English speaking background congregation, which is supposed to be part of the church community. Indeed, actions have been taken which even smack of dispossessing these dear Christians - all rationalised, of course!

Posted March 4, 2010

All those that are justified, God vouchsafes, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have His name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry, Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by Him as by a Father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation. 

This great statement identifies eleven privileges or benefits of being adopted as God’s sons and daughters: (1) bear God’s own name; (2) receive the Spirit of adoption; (3) can boldly access the throne of grace; (4) are enabled to cry, “Abba, Father”; (5) are treated with with fatherly compassion (”pitied”); (6) receive fatherly protection; (7) enjoy fatherly provision; (8) experience loving and appropriate fatherly discipline (”chastened”); (9) will never be cast out of the Father’s family; (10) are sealed till the Day of Redemption occurs at Jesus’ return; (11) inherit the promises God has made to his children, treating them as his heirs.

In conjunction with this my friend and I read Romans 8:12-17:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 

This passage teaches that sonship also involves sharing in Christ’s sufferings. This too is a privilege:

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, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11). 

His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name (Acts 5:40-41). 

Posted March 3, 2010

Shakyamuni continues, “It is by my superior skilfulness that I explain the law at great length to the world at large… [All present wonder why such stress is placed on the skilfulness of the Tathagatas and this is put to the Lord, “the Sun of men”, by Sariputra, emphasising the perplexity of all]

Sariptura: “Let thy voice be heard, O thou whose voice resounds like an egregious kettle-drum! proclaim thy law such as it is…”

The venerable Sariputra having spoken, the Lord said to him: “Enough, Sariputra; it is of no use explaining this matter. Why? Because, Sariputra, the world, including the gods, would be frightened if this matter were expounded.”

But the venerable Sariputra entreated the Lord a second time….

And Shakyamuni said a second time to him: “Enough, Sariputra; it is of no use explaining this matter, for the world, including the gods, would be frightened, Sariputra, if this matter were expounded, and some monks might be proud and come to a heavy fall.”

On that occasion uttered the Lord the following stanza: “Speak no more of it that I should declare this law! This knowledge is too subtle, inscrutable, and there are so many unwise men who in their conceit and foolishness would scoff at the law revealed.”

But for a third time Sariputra entreated Shakyamuni, requesting, “Let the Lord expound, let the Sugata expound this matter…”

After hearing Sariputra’s entreaty for the third time, Shakyamuni replied, “Since you have entreated me a third time, I will give you an answer.”

Now it so happened that 5,000 proud monks, nuns, and lay devotees of both sexes in the congregation rose from their seats and, after saluting with their heads the Lord’s feet, proceeded to leave the assembly. Owing to the principle of good which there is in pride they imagined having attained what they had not, and having understood what they had not. Therefore, thinking themselves aggrieved, they proceeded to leave the assembly, to which the Lord by his silence showed assent.

Then Shakyamuni addressed Sariputra, “My congregation, Sariputra, has been cleared from the chaff, freed from the trash; it is firmly established in the strength of faith. It is good, Sariputra, that those proud ones are gone away. Now I am going to expound the matter, Sariputra…”

By comparison, there have always been many who understand the message of the cross to be foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). However, this teaching, unlike that of the Lotus Sutra, does not hold itself out to be subtle and inscrutable and only to be accessed by an elite capable of grasping it. The ultimate experience of salvation is granted by God to those whom he chooses:

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).

Posted March 3, 2010

The Lord then rose with recollection and consciousness from his meditation, and forthwith addressed the venerable Sariputra:

“The Buddha knowledge, Sariputra, is profound, difficult to understand, difficult to comprehend. It is difficult for all disciples and Pratyekabuddhas to fathom the knowledge arrived at by the Tathagatas…and [the reason for] that, Sariputra, [is] because the Tathagatas have worshipped innumerable buddhas; because they have fulfilled their course for supreme, complete enlightenment, during innumerable aeons; because they have wandered far, displaying energy and possessed of wonderful and marvellous properties; possessed of properties difficult to understand; because they have found out things difficult to understand.

“And all laws, Sariputra, are taught by the Tathagata, and by him alone; no one but he knows all laws, what they are, how they are, what they are like, of what characteristics and of what nature they are.”

By contrast, in biblical Christianity ultimate redemptive knowledge is accessible to all. It is not “difficult to understand.” It does not take innumerable aeons and countless rebirths to acquire this knowledge. It does not involve incalculable time spent searching for it. Jesus told the Parable of the Workers of the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16):

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
 3″About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.

   “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

 7″ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
      “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

 8″When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

 9″The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12′These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

 13″But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

 16″So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
 

In context, Jesus is dealing with his disciples’ response to Jesus’ concluding remarks following the departure of the rich young man who was not prepared to sell his possessions in order to follow Jesus. Peter wants to know what rewards lie ahead for disciples like himself who have left everything to follow Jesus. Jesus promises great rewards indeed, but then adds: “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (19:30). It is to illustrate this point that Jesus now tells this parable. In this parable workers are employed at different stages of the day. Those who have worked all day in the heat of the sun are angered when they see their employer paying the same wage to those who have worked only for the last hour, even though their own wage was a fair one.

Here Jesus is countering any notion in Peter’s mind that their being the first to follow Jesus made them more privileged than disciples who would later follow Jesus. There are many implications that flow from this, but one of them is that saving ‘knowledge’ is not a time-based thing. Indeed, it is very simple, acknowledging Christ as Lord and following him in earnest.

Posted March 2, 2010

While this knowledge has definite content, it is primarily a relational knowledge, the inestimable privilege of knowing Christ and having an intimate, personal relationship with him.

Generalisations in Social Science

For Holy Scripture is the garment which our Lord Jesus Christ has put on and in which He lets Himself be seen and found. This garment is woven throughout and so wrought together into one that it cannot be cut or parted. But the soldiers take it from Christ crucified, i.e. heretics and schismatics. It is their particular mischief to want to have the coat entire, persuading everyone that all Scripture agrees with them and is of their opinion… they fashion another meaning, apart from and without the Word, this meaning is continually before their eyes, and like a blue glass through which they see everything blue and of their meaning. But they are rogues, as Paul calls them in Eph. 4, when he warns them not to be driven about by every wind of doctrine through the sleight of men. In Greek this little word “sleight” is kybia, in German dicing or cheating. For just as rogues are masters of dicing, and it yields them whatever they desire, so the schismatics and sectarians deal with Scripture, each of them wanting it all and dicing for it.

[Cited by Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I. Part 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978) 484.]

The words “take it from Christ crucified” are significant, alerting us to the fact that the doctrine of the cross is key to discerning whether the Bible is being misinterpreted or not. We might ask: Is this interpretation consistent with cross-centered, biblical soteriology? 

At another level this also becomes a major consideration with respect to the judgment as to whether Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation belong to the canon of Holy Scripture or not. As is well known, when Luther published his New Testament in 1522, he separated these four books from the rest and placed them at the end of the work, commenting:

“Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”

However, on closer scrutiny, these books, which, though questioned by some in Luther’s time, had been acknowledged as Scripture by the vast bulk of the Church by the end of the 4th century AD, are thoroughly consistent with biblical soteriology (along with other criteria established for adjudging canonicity).

May every God-breathed Scripture open our eyes to see the real Jesus!

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

Posted February 28, 2010

The next relevant passage is from Surah 20, namely 74-76 (Yusuf Ali):

74: Verily he who comes to his Lord as a sinner (at Judgment),- for him is Hell: therein shall he neither die nor live.

75: But such as come to Him as Believers who have worked righteous deeds,- for them are ranks exalted,-

76: Gardens of Eternity, beneath which flow rivers: they will dwell therein for aye: such is the reward of those who purify themselves (from evil).

In these verses Moses is preaching Islamic ideology to Pharaoh. This follows a fabulous reconstruction of the biblical encounter between Moses and Pharaoh, adding to the text, in which Pharaoh’s magicians express their belief in Allah, after their snakes are swallowed up by the one Moses throws down at Allah’s command. Again adding to the biblical account, the Qur’an has Pharaoh threatening to cut off their hands and feet on opposite sides and then crucify them on the trunks of palm-trees (71), to which the response is effectively, “Do as you will. You can only make decisions concerning this life and not about what happens after this life” (72).

In the Qur’an’s embellished account of this encounter, Moses adds:  “For us, we have believed in our Lord: may He forgive us our faults, and the magic to which thou didst compel us: for Allah is Best and Most Abiding.” Here Moses expresses remorse for having being forced to use magic to outdo the magic of Pharaoh’s sorcerers. He trusts that Allah will mercifully understand that he was compelled to commit this evil and, therefore, will forgive him. The ethical understanding implicit in this appeal to Allah’s mercy is regrettable. Firstly, it erroneously presupposes that the throwing down of the snake by Moses was a species of magic comparable to that employed by the Egyptian sorcerers. Rather, it was a demonstration of God’s sovereign power, with it being clearly understood in the Bible that magic, by contrast, involves manipulation of supernatural powers. Secondly, since Moses throws down the snake at Allah’s command there is an unavoidable inference, presumably missed by Muhammad or the writer of this Qur’anic account, that Allah himself is implicated in this evil.

At any rate, Moses tells Pharaoh that Hell awaits the one who, on the Day of Judgment, comes to Allah as a sinner (74). What an immense gulf there is here between Qur’anic and biblical thought, with its understanding that God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5) and that the only way in which a sinner can stand before God on the Day of Judgment is by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. In biblical thought, although final judgment does involve the assessment of the works people perform during their lives (Romans 2:5ff), this is only by way of testing whether such works are evidence of a life spent trusting in Christ for salvation. The notion that any person will gain admittance to Paradise on the basis of works he or she has performed is a complete absurdity in biblical thought (Ephesians 2:8-9). But this is precisely the flawed message preached by the Qur’anic Moses to the Qur’anic Pharaoh.

According to the Qur’an, Moses preached that those who do righteous deeds will be exalted to high ranks in Paradise (75), where they will enjoy forevermore life in the lush and well-irrigated Gardens of Eternity, because they succeeded in purifying themselves from evil. Again, the contrast between the Qur’anic and biblical concepts of purification could not be sharper. The Bible teaches that people are incapable of purifying themselves and that it is only the blood of Christ that cleanses us from all uncleanness (e.g. 1 John 1:9).

Posted February 28, 2010

The next relevant passage is from Surah 19, namely 58-63 (Yusuf Ali):

58: Those were some of the prophets on whom Allah did bestow His Grace,- of the posterity of Adam, and of those who We carried (in the Ark) with Noah, and of the posterity of Abraham and Israel of those whom We guided and chose. Whenever the Signs of (Allah) Most Gracious were rehearsed to them, they would fall down in prostrate adoration and in tears.

59: But after them there followed a posterity who missed prayers and followed after lusts soon, then, will they face Destruction,-

60: Except those who repent and believe, and work righteousness: for these will enter the Garden and will not be wronged in the least,- (They will enter) ‘Adn (Eden) Paradise (everlasting Gardens), which the Most Beneficent (Allah) has promised to His slaves in the unseen: Verily! His Promise must come to pass.

61: Gardens of Eternity, those which (Allah) Most Gracious has promised to His servants in the Unseen: for His promise must (necessarily) come to pass.

62: They will not there hear any vain discourse, but only salutations of Peace: And they will have therein their sustenance, morning and evening.

63: Such is the Garden which We give as an inheritance to those of Our servants who guard against Evil.

Musa (Moses) {51-52}, Harun (Aaron) {53}, Ishmael {54-55} and Idris (Enoch) {56-57}, that is, Enoch, are remembered as great prophets (56-57). Verse 58 is referring to these prophets as those to whom Allah showed favour (Maulana: “bestowed favours”; Pickthal: “showed favour”; Rashad: “blessed”; Sarwar: “chose them for his favour”). They are described as being the descendants of Adam, of those carried in Noah’s boat, and of Abraham and Israel, that is, those whom Allah guided and chose. Allah is called “the Beneficent” (Maulana, Pickthal, Sarwar, Shakir; Khan: “Most Beneficent”; Rashad: “Most Gracious” and it is said that when Allah had his revelations or messages recited to them that they responded by prostrating themselves and weeping.

However, so verse 59 continues, these prophets were followed by a generation which had ‘given up’ (Khan), “wasted” (Maulana), “ruined” (Pickthal), “lost” (Rashad), “neglected” (Sarwar, Shakir, Sherali) or “missed” (Yusuf Ali) the Salat (prescribed prayers), choosing rather to be led astray by their lusts or evil desires. Terrible judgment is pronounced on them for this: “they will be thrown in Hell” (Khan), “suffer the consequences” (Rashad), “certainly be lost” (Sarwar); “meet perdition” (Shakir); “meet destruction” (Sherali); face Destruction” (Yusuf Ali) [a lot tamer is Pickthal’s rendering: “they will meet deception.”] Those of them who repent and believe and return to doing what is right (implicitly includes going back to faithfully observing Salat) will enter the Garden of Paradise, without experiencing any injustice. Allah, whose promise is certain of fulfillment, has promised Gardens of Eternity or perpetuity to his servants (Pickthal: “slaves”). The word “unseen” is also used in this verse but translators vary as to its significance. Maulana and Pickthal understand it to refer to the ultimate unseen reality. Sarwar speaks of “the unseen promise.”Shakir thinks it is the gardens themselves that are unseen.

Once such Muslims have entered Paradise they will not hear there any “idle talk” (Pickthal) or “meaningless words” (Sarwar), but only Salam, salutations of peace. Also they will be fed and nourished both morning and evening. This is the Paradise that Allah will give as the inheritance of those of his servants who are righteous (Maulana: “who keep their duty”; Shakir, Yusuf Ali: “who guard against evil”).

From a biblical perspective, the designation of Harun, Ishmael and Enoch as prophets is strange. In the Old Testament there are only five verses concerning Enoch and they simply record that he was descended from Jared, that he fathered Methuselah, and lived for 300 years after this, having fathered other sons and daughters. It is twice stated of him that he “walked with God” and the thing that makes him stand out in the genealogy of Genesis 5 is that he does not die. Rather: “Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him” (v24). Nevertheless, there is biblical precedent for speaking of Enoch as a prophet because Jude 14 does speak of Enoch prophesying, that is, foreseeing the coming of the Lord at the time of final and ultimate judgment.

There is no biblical tradition of depicting Harun and Ishmael as prophets, though an argument may be made that Harun was a prophet in a secondary sense, in that he was appointed as Moses’ mouthpiece when the two of them went back to the people of Israel in Egypt (Exodus 4:27-31). But of Ishmael being a prophet in any sense not a whisper is to be found in the pages of Scripture.

It is further apparent that the Islamic concept of prophethood is more simplistic than the biblical notion. In Islam it is enough that Allah commands a man to be his messenger who preaches ‘the gospel’ of Islam. In the Bible, a prophet is much more than a mere messenger. He is a covenant mediator, an ambassador sent from God’s heavenly court, often to perform the diplomatic mission of representing the heavenly court in the earthly court of some king and to confront him with having violated the covenant with God.

The foundational documents which underlie the Qur’an’s exaltation of Moses, Aaron, Ishmael and Enoch are, of course, those relevant Old Testament texts which concern these figures. However, following the development of Islam the Qur’an retrospectively claims, without any supporting foundational documentation, that these and others were prophets of Islam; that they were Muslims, even though there is no historical evidence whatsoever for any expression of Islam prior to its founding by Muhammad.

The Qur’an, in the passage we are considering, depicts Moses, Aaron, Ishmael and Enoch all prostrating themselves before Allah and weeping as Allah communicated his revelations, that is, Islam, to them. It is true that in the Old Testament we do see various persons overwhelmed when they find themselves in the presence of God, though, strangely enough, weeping is not included in the range of responses depicted. Rather, we read of awe, terror, feelings of profound guilt and powerlessness, etc. But NOT weeping.

In this passage, the Qur’an places immense importance on observing Salat, formal prayers. Whether a Muslim goes to Hell or to Paradise hinges on whether he observes Salat or not. This emphasis on external observance stands in stark contrast with many biblical passages that stress God is concerned about the state of the heart rather than external observances per se. Not that the external observances are trivialized, but that when his people involve themselves in such practices, as they should, God looks on the heart rather than the external appearance (e.g. Psalm 51:16-19; Isaiah 58; cf. 1 Samuel 16:7). 

It is also interesting that the Qur’anic depiction of the Gardens of Paradise, as indicated in this passage, is consistently one in which what is emphasized are the pleasures that will be enjoyed by the Muslim who is permitted to enter. In the Bible, however, the predominant emphasis is upon those in heaven worshipping and serving God and enjoying their relationship with God and with Jesus (Revelation 5; 7:9-17; 22:1-5).

Posted February 21, 2010

www.facetofaceintercultural.com.au

For further exegetical considerations see under “Articles” Mark 12:18-27. Resurrection and God’s Life-Commitment (Exegetical Reflections).

Mark 12:18-27. Resurrection and God’s Life Commitment