On Shedding Tears

"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away tears from their eyes." (Revelations 7:15-17, KJV)

I never cried much growing up. In fact, I never quite understood why girls cry and shed tears so often and over somewhat trivial things, from receiving a sinister comment, wanting what she did not have, manipulating emotions of others to get what she wanted, to generally, wasting tears over guys. I remember attending my dad's funeral at the age of 8 and not having shed a single tear but stood silently beside my weeping mother, holding her hands in mine and hearing so called adults saying that I am too young to understand what is going on, all the while wishing I will hold it all together and wondering why no one understands the hurricane hurling inside my heart. But as I grew older, the flood gates to my tears seemed to have loosened or lost their strength. Either that or the lacrimal glands of my tears have become a lot more active.

Needless to say that not many ever saw my tears as I always try to hide them and almost never cry in front of people, other than my parents. Almost. Embarrassingly, tears rolled off my cheeks two days ago over a lovely dinner with a dear friend for no reason when a question triggered so much of what I still do not understand.

Da Vinci once said, "tears come from the heart and not from the brain." As an anonymous writer puts it and paints a more personal picture: "sometimes, memories sneak out of my eyes and roll down my cheeks." So perhaps, tears are how our heart speaks when our lips can't nor can the heart bear? Or perhaps, tears are the words our hearts express when our heads do not yet understand?

A simple and single most powerful moment in John's gospel is that "Jesus wept." (John 11:35). This famous verse occurs in John's narrative of the death of Lazarus, a follower of Jesus, as a prelude to Jesus' own death and resurrection in the later part of John's gospel in the New Testament of the bible. Lazarus' sisters sent word to Jesus of their brother's illness and impending death, but Jesus arrived four days after Lazarus died. After talking to the grieving sisters and seeing Lazarus' friends weeping, Jesus was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. When others asked "could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" (John 11:37, RSV), Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus and said "Did I not tell that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" (John 11:40, RSV) and brought Lazarus back to life. There is much said and written about the Lazarus of Bethany outside of the scripture, including in medieval Islamic tradition in which he was honoured as a pious companion of Jesus. These days, the name has connotation in science and popular culture as a literary term that is far from the theological view that as the subject of a prominent miracle of Jesus in the gospel of John, Lazarus points to the death and resurrection of Christ from the cross or as we know it, Jesus' crucifixion.

Yet, knowing that he can resurrect Lazarus, why did Jesus shed his tears? In contrast to most translated versions of our bible, the biblical Greek is perhaps the most moving in its encapsulation of emotions through a description of an action that "Jesus, he shed tears" (ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς). What that action embodies is extremely profound. The shortest verse in the bible for all its simplicity is perhaps packed with emotional complexity. Some scholars say that one reason for Jesus' tears is the deep compassion that he felt for those who were suffering, and as "the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15, RSV), in Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus, we get a glimpse of how the Father feels over the affliction and grief the children of God experience. Linked to that is the origin of sin. Sin grieves God deeply, and so do the wages of sin, death (Romans 6:23, RSV). Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden eastward in Eden, God, not just mankind, had endured sin's or men's horrific destruction and relentless rebellion, from the early murder of Abel by Cain in Genesis, through raising heroes to their rise and eventual downfall in Judges and to the demise of kings including the best of them in 1 & 2 Kings. Death had consumed almost all human beings that God had created.

As someone with artistic interests and tendency, sometimes we have to start afresh with certain mistakes on a canvass. And what may come of it may never be the same as the original work in a moment of inspiration. So an artist would understand the frustration of a serious mistake that ruins hours of work, especially water colour or acrylic where there is no recourse or remedy other than to start afresh because there is no painting over it or erasing a pencil stroke.  From time to time, it may pain the artist to do this, knowing the work output will never be the same but the best way forward is a clean canvass. So I read the flood in Genesis with a saddened heart because it is a poignant act of God who had little choice. Somewhere along the line in His creation, by giving free will and choice to man, created in His image out of an abundance of love, something went terribly wrong that everything is irreversible except to wipe away creation clean and start again. It pains me personally to read that "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I have made them.' " (Genesis 6:5-7, NIV).

If all things evil and their temptation are embodied by the biblical reference to "Satan", we recently wandered from the book of Revelations during our bible study discussions and wondered why God allowed this. Why did God not defeat Satan in the very beginning? Jonathan D. Sarfati's view on why Satan was "created" by God in Genesis and why God did not destroy Satan immediately comes back somewhat to love. The reason is the power of contrary choice in the way God created and allowed that in Adam and Eve where they were made in His image and in the image of each other. This power of choice or voluntary will is good or as Sarfati puts it, not actual evil, but the possibility of evil exists in temptation. It is out of love that God said to Adam "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." So in a world of perfect paradise with an abundance of fruits and all other goodness, Adam and Eve chose not to believe in God but the words of the serpent instead perhaps, and in so doing, disobeyed God that led to the fall of man and the origin of sin. Yet, the true wisdom of God appears in that, though His creation and creatures fall, God is still able to achieve His original purpose through the redemption which is in Jesus. And it is through the covenant with a good man Noah after the flood, that God said in his heart "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (Genesis 8:21-22). So the related question of why God did not destroy Satan is, according to Sarfati, because it isn't that "Satan will ever repent, but that if God were to immediately destroy evil, He would destroy all of us as well, with perfect justice." This makes perfect sense to me personally at least as Satan can be a simple voice in our head that does not align with words of God.

So this is the biblical creation story that culminated in God sending his only son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die for our sins. This is in stark contrast to other myths of creation, for example and even the grandest of all, Greek mythology that, as beautifully written by Stephen Fry in Mythos, originated from Chaos then "peopled as it was by primal deities whose whole energy and purpose seem to have been directed towards reproduction" and stories of epic dramas filled with "murderous, cruel, rapacious and destructive" Gods and later demi Gods as "where divine blood fell, life could not help to spring forth from the earth". Nothing compares to the story of God's perfect creation and the gospel of Jesus Christ who simply wept at the reality of this world knowing what it was meant to be.

Someone once said to me that feelings are like temperature which you can test or measure even if they do not tell of why or the underlying reasons. Yet, feelings can be controlled but tears never lie. So perhaps in tears, we know that we have a heart and love is in that heart. And there is nothing greater than God's love for us.

All moral rights belong to the author except other works quoted or referred to.

Art of Apology, If It Ever So Exists?

‘Tis thine to pity and forgive.' - Robert Burns

As someone who sees sorry perhaps said too often, I sometimes wonder if the art of apology is fast becoming an apparatus for absolution in our day and age. When David cried out to God in Psalm 51 that: "against thee, thee only, have I sinned", I used to wonder what about the broken Bathsheba and murder of Uriah? Why does the Bible omit description of, say, David's apology of a profuse and profound proportion in recognition of others and the gravity of his sins in rape and murder? If David pleaded for mercy from God to wash him thoroughly from his iniquity and cleanse him from his sins (Psalm 51:1-2), has he restored the relationships with those he sinned against? The scriptural message cannot be clearer on God's words being "if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them, then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:23-24). Yet, David seemed to emphasise that "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17)? In truth, Bathsheba's first child by David was struck with severe illness and died unnamed a few days after birth, and Nathan the prophet noted that David's house would be punished for killing Uriah then marrying Bathsheba, which we saw unfolded in 2 Samuel. There are times in life when we may have no recourse to restore a relationship. We may respect the other we have wronged who may not wish to hear words of sorrow or sorry for our sins. In my case, falling short of the fruits of the spirit is far less than what we ought to be, having just understood, at least in theory, that "love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). So when we are less than who we are or ought to be, and are lost in the labyrinth of lament where we cannot present an apology to the one against whom we have wronged and yet who may be the only one able to forgive what we have done, we can only perhaps present penitence to God with a contrite heart. "For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another...let us not live in word or speech, but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything." (1 John 3:11-18). So in remorse and repentance did David turn to God in acknowledgement of his transgressions in one of the famous Psalms. Perhaps after attempts to apologise, undocumented by the scripture, or knowing no apology in this world would ever mend what he broke, David turned to Him in prayers.
A short piece born out of sorrow. All moral rights (including copyright) belong to the author.

Days of Creation - Myth or Mystery?

For someone who sees time as an archenemy, who shares a similar fascination with time and who hopefully finds humour in this by the time it gets read. 

Einstein once called time as an illusion. Indeed, "for more than two thousand years, the world's great minds have argued about the essence of time. Is it finite or infinite? Does it flow like a river or is it granular, proceeding in small bits, like sand trickling through an hourglass? And what is the present? Is now an indivisible instant, a line of vapor between the past and the future? Or is it an instant that can be measured--and, if so, how long is it? And what lies between the instants?" - The Secret Life of Time, Alan Burdick.

A no less puzzling part about the Bible is perhaps the days of God's creation and its length of time which may appear, on its face, hard to reconcile with science or common sense. Many scholars reiterate that the point of our creation narrative is not to provide a scientific description of natural origins. Yet how should we make of it? Interestingly, Bavinck has emphasised that whether a given section of the scripture contains a poetic description, a parable or a fable, is not for us to determine arbitrarily but must be clear from the text itself. According to him, whilst the creation narrative is a series of miracles that the biblical story portrays to us each time with a single brushstroke without giving too much details, the first chapter of Genesis, however, hardly contains any ground for the opinion that we are dealing here with a vision or myth. It clearly bears a 'historical' character and forms the introduction to a book that presents itself from beginning to end as 'history'. Nor is it possible to separate the facts (being the religious content) from the manner in which they are expressed. For example, as we can see elsewhere in addition to Genesis on the days of creation, there is no objection to the exegesis that God created heaven and earth in 'six days' in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. So what can we make of this 'miraculous' length of time that God created the universe?

Let's first turn to the words of the scripture. To understand the 'week' and the 'days' of creation, it is important to distinguish the first act of creation - as immediate calling forth of the light to separate from darkness and bringing forth of heaven and earth out of nothing - from the secondary separation and formation of the six days, which begin God's preservation and government of the world according to Bavinck. The work of the first day consists in the creation of light, in the separation of light and darkness, in the alternation of day and night, and hence also in movement, change, becoming. It is not until the fourth day that God said "let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years" (NRSV, Genesis 1:14-15). So 'days' leading up to the fourth day denotes the time in which God was at work creating between alternation of mornings and evenings. With every morning, he brought into being a new world and every evening began when he finished it. The creation days are the work days of God. 

Let's then turn to the Hebrew word yom (יום) for "day". Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word has several literal definitions including (1) period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), (2) general term for time or point of time or a time period of unspecified length, (3) sunrise to sunset or sunset to next sunset, (4) a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc) or a long but finite span of time (such as age, epoch, season etc).  As Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary with fewer words compared to other languages, words often have multiple meanings determined by context. Thus yom, in its context, is sometimes translated as: time (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8), year (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4), age (Gen 18:11, 24:1, 47:28, Joshua 23:1, 23:2), always (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, 2 Chronicles 18:7), season (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3), epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).  In other words, the Hebrew word yom relates to the concept of time but is not just for days but for time in general. How yom is translated depends on the context of its use with other words in the sentence around it, using hermeneutics.

So by God's timing of creation and by God's labor, resumed and renewed six times, He prepared the whole earth and transformed the chaos into a cosmos, and for the whole world, it remains a symbol of the eons of this dispensation that it will some day culminate in eternal rest, the cosmic Sabbath on the day of our rest (Hebrew 4). Yet, the days of Genesis 1 are to be considered days and not to be identified with the precise periods of geology or science as Bavinck has reasoned. They nevertheless - like the work of creation as a whole - have an extraordinary character. The essence of a day and night does not consist in their duration (shorter or longer) but in the alternation of light and darkness, as Genesis 1:4 and 5 clearly teach us. This alternation was not affected by the sun, which only made its appearance on the fourth day, but came about in a different way: by the emission and contraction of the light created in verse 3. According to Bavinck, the first three days, however much they may resemble our days, also differ significantly from them and hence were extraordinary cosmic days. 

Most importantly, the creation narrative in Genesis is utterly unique. It is devoid of theogony and is rigorously monotheistic. The Bible's narrative shines through against a backdrop of other creation myths arising from folklore, Pegan beliefs, Roman/Greek, Babylonian and other forms of mythology. In light of the recent lunar new year celebrated in some Asian countries and especially as the Chinese New Year in China, the creation story of Pangu passed on in folklore is a fascinating contrast in its overly detailed approach to how elements of the universe are created over the thousands of years. I sometimes think that the creation narrative in Genesis is poetic. Whilst not meant to be scientific, geological, biological or paleontological, it is also not bogged down by unnecessary details but arguably with enough to withstand the test of time as truth. Personally, I find it extremely powerful that rather than descriptive details on how elements of existence in this world are brought to be, the Bible simply and conceptually highlights God's word. In the Bible, we have seen that God characteristically brings about his purpose through speech. Not only in creation but in providence, it is God's lively speech that is at work: "He upholds the universe by the word of this power" (Hebrew 1:3). So instead of the analogy of the invisible hand, we should think in terms of the audible word. God does not simply operate on the world, causing its history and human actions, but in the world and within its manifold creatures. 

The interpretation of Genesis has a rich and diverse history.  As Bavinck goes as far as to insist on the 'historical' rather than merely mythical or visionary character of the creation story in Genesis, it is perhaps important to recognise that a theological perspective on the material world differs from (but should not be isolated from) a philosophic and scientific one. Whilst the biblical chronology and order of creation seem, on the face of it, at odds with the accounts given by geology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines, various attempts by scholars to harmonise them achieve only modest and not satisfying results. The Bible does not provide us with a scientific cosmology but data of natural science should be taken seriously by Christians as general revelation, yet recognising that only biblical revelation can describe the true state of the world. It is true that the science is still young and faces many unanswered questions. As such, there is much merit in the point made by many scholars that theology should neither fear the sure results of science nor, in immoderate anxiety, make premature concessions to opinions of the day. As the science of divine and eternal things, it should uphold its confessional convictions with dignity and honour and in patience even if certain parts of the scripture remain in mystery, yet. 

Just as someone put to me through an insightful and intelligent question of where did the 'week' concept come from when a year is one orbit of the earth around the sun, a month is one orbit of the moon with respect to the earth-sun line and a day is one rotation of the earth, I will leave this thought with you on matters of your faith.

All moral rights belong to the author except to the extent other works are referred to or quoted herein.

Battle of the Bible Forms?

In answer to some recent queries about translated versions of the Bible.

Commercial lawyers are familiar with the battle of the forms. Lord Dennings once wrote that "...where there is a battle of the forms, there is a contract as soon as the last of the forms is sent and received without taking objection to it. In some cases, the battle is won by the person who fires the last shot. He is the person who puts forward the latest terms and conditions and, if they are not objected to by the other party, he may be taken to have agreed with them." So what about the myriad of translated versions of our Bible? Is there a right or wrong version? Is there a version that is more correct, accurate or superior? Having worked as a professional accredited translator, I can understand why the answer is not nearly as simple as contract law where the last accepted version prevails.

As a generalisation, perhaps it is helpful to think of the different translations of the Bible along a spectrum from literal translation that is word-for-word to conceptually-based translation that is more meaning-for-meaning or thought-for-thought or a form of paraphrasing. As the literal accuracy of the translation increases, the readability decreases. As the literal accuracy of a translation decreases, the readability increases. Whilst there are many translated versions which seek to reflect a middle ground between accuracy and readability, there is much more merit in reading different versions of the Bible, whether it be to grapple with a challenging Bible passage or to understand how translation can differ in respect of certain concepts in the scripture. For example, the King James Version is good for the books of poetry on lyrical and poetic aspects (especially the Psalms being one of my favourite parts of the Bible), but always cross reference other translated versions that are more accurate in theological meaning. As Robert Alter criticises with a sense of humour in The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary that: "broadly speaking, one may say that in the case of the modern version, the problem is a shaky sense of English and in the case of the King James Version, a shaky sense of Hebrew." This is rightly so with possible extension of this statement to a shaky sense of Koine (common) Greek given the King James translators were scholars trained in classical Greek with perhaps questionable familiarity with Koine Greek, being the original language of the New Testament.

It is interesting to note that the King James translators commissioned to work on the project had no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources discovered in recent centuries. These include better manuscripts of the entire New Testaments which are 600 to 900 years older than those available to the King James translators as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls being the Old Testament manuscripts discovered in 1947 dated 100BC-AD70 that are a thousand years older than those available to the King James translators. Furthermore, the King James translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 men in total) where the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin (being a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible) with influence from the Geneva Bible that is in turn influenced by Tyndale's 1562 Bible (which all had secondary reference to Latin Vulgate although translated primarily from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts). So there is little doubt that meaning or nuance would be lost in translation after so much layering of language and historical circumstances.

As DA Carson points out that the degree of uncertainty raised by textual questions, being what is actually in the manuscripts, is a great deal less than the degree of uncertainty raised by how one interprets what the manuscripts say: "in other words, even when the text is certain, there is often an honest difference of opinion among interpreters as to the precise meaning of the passage. Few Evangelicals, I would like to think, will claim (in)fallibility for their interpretations of the Scriptures; they are prepared to live with the (relatively) small degree of uncertainty raised by such limitations. The doubt raised by textual uncertainties, I submit, is far, far smaller. " 

To help with all this, here are some personal tips. Download Bible Gateway to access different versions and use the below Bible Gateway infographic with facts and spectrum of the non-exhaustive list of translated versions to understand where each translated version is coming from and what differences you may find amongst them. If you are relatively new to Christianity or the Bible, my personal suggestion is to start with the NRSV, NIV or ISV to navigate the scripture for the first time.  Of couse, if you happen to have a KJV to study it academically as a literary classic before becoming a Christian, let me assure you that the experience is an enjoyable one especially if you have the right tools to cross refer other translations of the biblical (rather than canonical) text.

So unlike the battle of forms, this is a situation that speaks for options rather than choice.


This piece is more an aggregator of information to serve, hopefully, a useful purpose as a helpful tool for those with questions on translated versions of the Bible. All moral rights belong to the author except to the extent other works are quoted, extracted or otherwise referred to in this piece.

Job on Pain and Providence

...Ara vos prec, per acquella valor

que vos guida al som de l'escalina,

sovegna vos a temps de ma dolor.

Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina.
        - Purgatoria, XXVI, 145-148, The Divine Comedy by Dante

I would give everything to speak with God. 

Some of the greatest literary poems in this world speak of emotions in my heart. Emotions I know not. Emotions I  know not that I have or still have. Emotions I know not that I could ever have or would wish to have, no, not someone like me. As throbbingly painful and beautiful as lyric poetry can ever be, the poems speak of this world and the worldly emotions we may humanly perceive but with little comfort or consolation to my heart in pain, however crafted by the art of language with the wonder of human creation. They may resonate but they may never tell of why.

As Job cries out in human affliction and emotional agony to come before God for a judgement of his righteousness, the manifestation of theopany in man and the last of secular wisdom through Elihu paint a prelude to the magnificant picture in anticipation of God who speaks at the end in the book of Job. Certain parts of my faith resemble that of Elihu, and I certainly hope to represent, through faith, this scriptural character who says beyond the boundaries of his age: "great things doeth He, which we cannot comprehend." (Job 37:5, KJV). God may not be directly accessible to us but Elihu eloquently calls us to "hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth. He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth...God thundereth marvellouosly with his voice" so "Hearken unto this...stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God" (Job 37:2-4, 14, KJV). Contrary to some scholars who view this as a message that suffering is pedagogic, the message also speaks somewhat of the providence of God. 

And God's providence speaks of omnipotence and His boundless power over both primary and secondary causes. Aquinas, employing the Aristotelian category of natural causes, recognised that the scripture speaks of both divine and natural causes -- in God's predestination of all things that come to pass through primary causes and in the human actions that God honours through secondary causes. Originally, the word providence means the act of foreseeing (providentia, the Latin equivalent of Greek promētheia (ἀπὸ τής πρόμηθείας)) or foreknowing (pronoia, πρόνοια). The Christian faith understands the providence of God to mean that all things are not only known by God in advance but determined and ordained in advance. It is "that will of God by which all existing things receive suitable guidance through their end" - John of Damascus. So providence is the act of God by which from moment to moment, he preserves and governs all things.  It is not only to 'see for' but also to 'foresee'. Yet, the providence of God does not cancel out secondary causes, human responsibility or wishes within the concurrence of God's will. What marks Christianity uniquely different from other religious beliefs (perhaps rooted in deism or pantheism that may come close to secular notions of "fate" and "chance"), is that providence includes God's care through secondary causality of the created order of natural law as he maintains it, including us.

God is never idol. He never stands by passively looking on. With divine potency, he is always active in both nature and grace. According to Bavinck, providence therefore is a positive act, not a giving permission to exist but a causing to exist and working from moment to moment. Scripture tells us both that God works all things so that the creature is only an instrument in his hand, that providence is distinct from creation and presupposes the existence and self-activity of creatures. Secondary causes are subordinated to God as the primary cause and in that subordination nevertheless remain true causes. With his power, God makes possible every secondary cause and is present in it with his being at its beginning, progression and end. It is He who posits it and makes it move into action and who further accompanies it in its working and leads it to its effect. He is "at work' [in us] both to will and to do for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13) but this energising activity of the primary cause in the secondary cause is divinely great in that precisely by that activity, He stirs those secondary causes into an activity of their own. 

“Concurrence is precisely the reason for the self-activity of the secondary causes and these causes, sustained from beginning to the end by God's power, work with a strength that is appropriate and natural to them.” As Bavinck puts it, precisely because the primary and the secondary cause do not stand and function dualistically on separate tracks, but the primary works through the secondary, the effect that proceeds from the two is one and the product is one. There is no division of labor between God and his creature. The product and effect would be also in the same sense totally the product and effect of the primary as well as totally the product and effect of the secondary cause. For we must not suppose that God works in an iniquitous man as if he were a stone or a piece of wood, but He uses him as a thinking creature, according to the quality of his nature, which He has given him. For what power would there be in faith that recommends stoical indifference or fatalistic acquiescence as true godliness?

While riddles remain for human understanding of providence (and God should have His mystery), this theological framework affords the believer with consolation and hope. For a humble Christian mind like mine, who wonders if the mistakes of mine are part of God's plan and surely, not actions which would change the greater course or cause of His, theology speaks of a God who knows all permutation of all possible action, inaction, decision and determination of ours as well as all and each probability of outcomes which chart out the paths He wills at His good pleasures and works along the concurrence of primary and secondary causes of this His world and our world. In other words to put it crudely, He respects our choices and parents us along the way.

So as Job asks and knows through the rhetoric of his pain: "Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whoes hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind...with him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding" (Job 12:10-13, KJV), God appears at the end in answer to Job's appeal and speaks directly to Job of the infinite and intimate connection of God with God's world as well as His careful and detailed superintendence that cannot be understood within the human compass, but only within the framework of a vision of God that can clarify the present puzzles of human existence in a life yet to come. So as we are blindsided by broken hearts and drowning in emotions not dissimilar to Job's outcry in the bitterness of his soul that is weary of its life where if "my grief were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together...it would be heavier than the sand of the sea: therefore my words are swallowed up"  "for the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me" (Job 6:2-3, 3:23-25, KJV), be reminded of the limited horizon of our knowledge of this world and of baffling human experiences constricted by the present passage of time. Be reminded of God's words in the interlude of Job where wisdom is found (Job 28: 12-24):

"But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living.
The depth saith, it is not in me; and the sea saith, it is not with me.
It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof.
... God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof.
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven" 

Echoing that of Job's emotional turmoil of darkness:"as for that night, let darkness seize upon it...let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein...let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day." (Job 3: 6-10, KJV) is Pablo Neruda's poem. Precisely where Neruda's famous poem ends in "Tonight I can write the saddest lines" is where I would continue with "Tomorrow I will face the world with a smile".  

For we live in hope and in Him and in the hope of Him, and there is nothing I would not give to know Him and speak with Him. 

Take this piece as fictional and not founded in research or facts. All moral rights belong to the author except to the extent other works are quoted or otherwise referred to in this piece.

Song of Songs for Love and Longing

I have often dismissed the Song of Solomon. In fact, I used to think that you are better off reading some sonnets, and that the non-Christian literature has much more to offer on this topic if you want to read great love poems ranging from the works of Shakespeare to Dante, Lord Byron to John Donne, Coleridge to Chaucer. Found towards the last section of the Tanakh (תָּנָ״ךְ) in the Old Testament, I have wondered how on earth did the Song of Solomon make its way into the bible immediately after the wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes and before the great prophets in the book of Isaiah, and why?

A random conversation with a friend last night over drinks led me to pick up the Song of Solomon and read it from its beginning to the end. Whilst not without some will power but at least willingly albeit grudgingly, I decided to give it a second chance since someone else clearly seems to resonate with it and sees its beauty. Being one of the five scrolls or megillot ( חמש מגילות) traditionally read publicly in synagogues, the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs or Canticle of Canticles) used to be sung with cantillation. On its face, the eight chapters in this book of the bible show no interest in the covenant or the God of Israel, nor do they explore wisdom like the preceding books of poetry. Instead, the Song of Solomon gives voice to two lovers yearning for each other in melodic harmony. Although accepting of what is written, as someone who is not quite that romantic at heart, who stays in the sweet comfort of mutual affection and who tries to run away from anything that may lead to neediness or a whirlwind of emotional turbulence, the Song of Solomon made no sense to me in what it teaches us from a biblical perspective. Until now.

Christian interpretations of the Song of Solomon vary widely, from the view that it describes covenantal love of Christ for his ’bride', the church, to the medieval mysticism that construes it to apply to the love between Christ and the human soul, somehow. An interpretation that has perhaps gained the most credence amongst modern scholars is, put simply, that the Song of Solomon celebrates the joy and goodness of human love between the sexes as well as the sense of inner fulfillment and harmony with God's creation that arise from such love.

Herman Bavinck has explored "an idea of the richest religious and ethical significance", namely that Adam was not created alone. "As a man and by himself, he was incomplete...The creation of humankind in God's image was only completed on the sixth day, when God created both man and woman in union with each other, in his image." In his book, Bavinck states it is not good that man should be alone (Gen 2:18), nor is it good that man and woman should be alone. Upon the two of them, God immediately pronounced the blessing of multiplication (Gen 1:28). "Not the man alone, nor the man and woman together, but only the whole of humanity is the fully developed image of God, his children, his offspring." The image of God is too rich for it to be fully realised in a single human being, however richly gifted that human being may be.

So Eve was created from Adam and Adam can be the first principle of the whole race where the unity of the human race could be rooted in the unity of its origin, as united and epitomised in one head where Christ is the head of the church in the covenant of grace and with Adam as the head of mankind in the covenant of works. The woman is a partaker of human nature and of the image of God, and she represents that nature and image in accordance with her own nature and in a manner uniquely her own, alongside man and in solidarity with man. She is 'from man' 'for the man' and 'the glory of man' yet not entirely independent of man. The man, though head of his wife and the image and glory of God because he in the first place is the bearer of dominion, is nevertheless incomplete without the woman.

In contrast to the sometimes pagan fascination of the maternal presence of procreation and fertility, and the fact that biologically man comes from woman, the bible paints a poignant picture of equality and order in the world of man, woman and God "for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [are] of God." (1 Corinthian 11: 12, King James Version).

So as the Song of Songs takes us back to Adam and Eve with a myriad of rich imagery of the Ein Gedi, the forests and the foliage, the brambles and the blossoms, the fruits and the apple tree, that reminds us of the garden planted eastward in Eden by God where he put the man he had formed and the woman made from man and brought unto the man, I will leave you with two verses which stood out upon giving the book a real 'second chance' that it deserves in the Song of Solomon 8:6-7 (King James Version).

"Set me as a seal upon thine heart,
     as a seal upon thine arm:
for love is strong as death;
     jealousy is cruel as the grave:
the coals thereof are coals of fire,
    which hath a most vehment flame.
Many waters cannot quench love,
    neither can the floods drown it:
if a man would give all the substance of his house for love,
    it would utterly be contemned."

This piece has paraphrased a small number of online sources not cited here in addition to Herman Bavinck. All moral rights (including copyright) belong to the author except to the extent quoted, referred to or otherwise subsisting in the works of others dated earlier than the date of this piece. The author does not and does not intend to infringe any such moral rights in any way!

A New Year's Day Prayer 2020

A new year's day prayer by two churches, from which I have and have had the blessing of fellowship throughout my Christian life to date, in rememberance of thanksgiving and prayer (Philippians 1:1-6).

"Almighty Lord and Loving Heavenly Father, 
I praise you that you are the God of resurrection and rebirth. By the power of your Holy Spirit you renew human life, bring hope and peace even where death descends.
Give me your wisdom as the year unfolds: teach me how better to love those it is my calling to love - whether that be family, friends, neighbours, or enemies; watch over my steps and keep me from sin. Preserve me from harm and danger; keep me healthy in body, mind, and spirit; give to me a longing for your justice and your horror of evil; and let me be filled with the knowledge of your will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, that I might lead a life worthy of the Lord. I give you thanks for the year just past and for all that you have given me in it, whether that be its delights and joys or its pains and sorrows; and I give to you the year ahead. Give me the opportunity of doing such good works in this coming year, that people may see the love of Jesus Christ abundantly in me.   
And Almighty and Everliving God, I pray for our troubled and divided world, that you might bring peace and reconciliation in this coming year, and that those who lead us would be filled with wisdom and humility. I pray that the name of Jesus Christ would be known among the nations of the earth, and I pray especially for those who are suffering for his name at this time - that their light would not be dimmed, and that you would heed their pleas to protect them. 
In all these things, Father, I pray in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ, who died for me and lives again that I might know the power of his resurrection. Amen"  

By Michael Jensen, St Marks Darling Point.

"You made this land and have blessed us with its riches and beauty.
Lord of all days and years, and time and eternity,
We have not always cared for the land, the wildlife, the waterways as you would have us do.
You are a gracious and forgiving God, a refuge to all who seek your shelter, our strong defence in trial and tribulation.
Send rain we pray to extinguish flames and heal our land.
Mercifully protect life and property.
Give help and hope to our neighbours assailed by fire.
Comfort and provide for those who grieve.
Uphold those who suffer loss,
Give peace and hope to those bewildered and broken-hearted.
We thank you for men and women of courage and selflessness.
We thank you for brave communities of care and support,
We thank you for those who share your comfort and hope,
We thank you for those at a distance giving and praying.
Lord, you sent your Son so that we would know your power to save, your presence with your people in this world of turmoil, and your promise to renew the whole creation. Turn our hearts to you, that we may have faith for this day and hope for eternity.
We ask in Jesus' name. Amen." 

By Kanishka Raffel, St Andrews Cathedral.


If you are able, interested or would like to help battle the blazing bushfire across Australia, check out https://anglicanaid.org.au/nsw-bushfire-appeal and https://ardfa.org.au/.


All intellectual property and moral rights subsisting in this piece belong to the respective authors of the prayers and the respective churches. Don't infringe but please pray and share with us.