“SO, WHAT’S YOUR FINAL ANSWER?”

Passage: Mark 8:27-30

“Regis Philbin's question from the popular game show „Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,‟ has become a common buzz-phrase. „So what's your final answer?‟” (Angier) Every day we are being confronted with so many questions in life. Some questions are very easy to answer. Questions such as, “Did you have your breakfast already?” “Which movie would you like to watch?” “What shirt shall I wear?” But there are questions that would require us to pause and think about our answer. These questions require wise answers for it will affect greatly our future. Questions like “Will you marry me?” “What course shall I enroll in college?” When Jesus was traveling with his disciples from Bethsaida to the villages of Caesarea Philippi he confronted his disciples with questions that will reveal their understanding about the person of the one whom they call master.

Question #1: "Who do people say that I am?"
“Mark‟s presentation sets the readers mind about the motion taking place because of the words „on the way‟” (Brooks, 134). They were not yet in Caesarea but traveling on that direction. When we travel with someone, we don‟t miss talking about the place we are going to. It may be about the scenic spots that attract many people, a historical event that took place in the area, or places with memorable experiences we have had with someone. I believed the question was not asked incidentally by the master but it had a significant reason and connection with the place. “Caesarea Philippi back then was a major Hellenistic city built by Herod in Honor of Augustus. It was also a place called „Paneas‟ dedicated to a god named „Pan.‟ In that city we will also see the shrine of a cult emperor erected. It was also known in the ancient days that the place was a sanctuary of Baal worship” (Witherington, 239). It is interesting to know that Jesus, while on their way to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, chose to reveal his Messiaship to the disciples. It is possible then that he wanted to convey a message to them, by asking a question about how people perceived him, that the messiah is far greater than the emperors and the gods worshipped by the people. In the city dedicated to false gods, Jesus‟ true identity was going to be revealed.

“In rabbinic tradition the learners are the ones usually asking questions while the teacher/rabbi is the one giving the answers” (Brooks, 134). But in this case, it was the teacher who asked, thus it must be an interrogation and not an inquiry. “Who do people say that I am?” Jesus‟ first question was directed to the perception of other people about him. The answers given by the disciples were similar with how the officials of Herod described Jesus in Mark 6:14-15, “And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, „John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.‟ But others were saying, „He is Elijah‟ And others were saying, „He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old‟” (NASB). Seemingly it sounded like a verbatim report. “It is interesting to know that the names of Elijah and John the Baptist were mentioned. Both of them were forerunners of the messiah, but clearly they were not the expected messiah” (Cole, R., 135). Their answers tell us that the people in those days have a wrong conception about the person of Jesus. What they saw was only the surface of what Jesus really is.

The situation reminds me of the RMS Titanic story. It was unimaginable that the “Unsinkable Ship” Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. “On the night of Sunday, 14 April 1912, the temperature had dropped to near freezing and the ocean was calm. The moon was not visible (being two days before new moon), and the sky was clear. Captain Smith, in response to iceberg warnings received via wireless over the preceding few days, had drawn up a new course which took the ship slightly further southward. That Sunday at 13:45, a message from the steamer “Amerika” warned that icebergs lay in Titanic's path, but as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi wireless radio operators were not focused on relaying such „non-essential‟ ice messages to the bridge. They underestimated the tip of the icebergs they saw. At 23:40, while sailing about 400 miles (640 km) south Fleet sounded the ship's bell three times and telephoned the bridge, but it was too late already. The iceberg brushed the ship's starboard side (right side), buckling the hull in several places and popping out rivets below the waterline over a length of 299 feet (90 m).” (RMS Titanic)

Application:
Of all our senses, the eyes give the brain the most information to be processed. It starts working from the moment we wake up until we close them at night when we go to sleep. They bring-in tons of information about the world – movements, events, changes, beauty, and many more. Our eyes are very useful and powerful. But it has its limitations. It cannot see when there is no light during night time and it cannot see through/beyond a matter. In that case the information our eyes can give are also limited. Sometimes the brain has to assume some judgment about the matters that eyes cannot see. That was exactly what happened to Jack Phillips and Harold Bride. What they saw was only the tip of the iceberg, and the brain assumed its size under the water. In the same sense, during the ministry of Jesus he performed miracles so that they will know that he is God. He turned the water into wine, gave sight to the blind, strengthened those who cannot walk, drove out demons from those who were possessed, healed those who were sick, and restored life to those who died already. But the problem with the people, particularly the Pharisees, was that they saw only the surface of the person of Christ. Their eyes testified to them that he was just like them, an ordinary man whose father was a
carpenter. They thought he was only a prophet who received revelations and power from God, a forerunner of the messiah that they have been expecting for so many years already. Their eyes failed to see those wonders he made that can testify his deity. No wonder at the end of the day they all shouted “Crucify him!”

We are privileged with what we have today. The Bible gives us the vivid picture of who really Jesus is. God deserves our thanksgiving for giving us the eyes to see and the faith to believe. It is my prayer that if someone will be asked, “Who do the ZCAEC people say that Jesus is?” the person would testify “That church says Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” May we all shout and testify the entirety of Jesus Christ. May we all be his instruments to open the spiritual eyes of those who cannot see.

Question #2: "But who do you say that I am?"
After hearing the common people‟s perception, this time Jesus directed the question to his disciples. The first word of his query “But” indicates that he was expecting a contrasting answer to the earlier opinion given by the people about him. Now they are required to give their own perception of their master. Peter, as the most impulsive among the disciples as I have observed in the gospel, answered the question with certainty. There was no second thought when he declared Jesus as the Christ. He said neither “maybe” nor “probably” but plainly declared it right after the interrogation.

The disciples got it right, but partially right. They realized that Jesus was the Messiah that the prophets have foretold about. But in their minds he was a different messiah. They were expecting for a political deliverance that would culminate in a peaceful and bountiful kingdom led by the Christ. With an ordinary Jewish mindset the disciples did not capture the whole picture about the kingdom that Jesus was preaching. In chapter 9 verses 31 and 32, Jesus mentioned to them the coming events pertaining to the betrayal and his death, but none of them understood what it was all about. It was not surprising then to know that after this confession they discussed among themselves their real motives and expectations. Their understanding about the messiah was later revealed in chapter 10 verse 37, “They said to Him, „Grant that we may sit, one on your right and one on your left, in your glory.” (NASB)

Prior to this account we see Jesus healing a blind man in Bethsaida. He spat on the eyes of the man while laying upon him his hand. Then he asked him if he sees anything. The man figured out men walking like trees. He was already seeing but blurred. So Jesus laid again his hand upon his eyes. This time the vision was clear already. “The stepwise movement from blindness to sight recorded in the miracle story of 8:22-26 is partially repeated in the responses first of the disciples and then of Peter” (Moloney, 165). As I have said Peter and his colleagues were partially right with the answer they gave. “But like the blind man his eyes are not fully open to the truth about Jesus. There is a deeper mystery to the messianic status of Jesus of Nazareth, whom the disciples are following. They are yet to come to full sight, matching the final experience of the blind man, seeing everything clearly” (Moloney, 167). No wonder Jesus, after hearing the answer of Peter, warned them not to tell anyone about him in verse 30. It has something to do with the popular misconception of the nature and role of the Messiah. “As a matter of fact the word „warned‟ uttered by Jesus ordinarily means „to rebuke.‟ The association of this term suggests that the popular conception of Messiaship is not only inadequate, but erroneous.” (Brooks, 135) 

Application:
This account reminds me of the story “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant. The story begins with a description of Madame Mathilde Loisel. Though she is „„pretty and charming,‟‟ she and her husband, a clerk in the Ministry of Education, are not well off financially. She has always dreamed of a life of leisure, but her lifestyle is decidedly more modest. Ashamed of her social standing, she no longer visits Madame Forestier, an old school friend who has become rich. When they are invited to a ball, Madame Loisel becomes very upset, insisting that she has nothing appropriate to wear. No elegant dress and jewelries to show off. They ended up buying a new dress and barrowing a diamond necklace from Madame Forestier. At the party Madame Loisel was the most beautiful woman in attendance. When the ball was over and they were home already they were surprised to know that the necklace was gone. They did all their best to find it but they failed. After a few days they found themselves in jewelry stores searching for a similar necklace. They were dismayed to find out that it cost 40 thousand francs. They borrowed money, bought the necklace and returned it to Madame Forestier. The Loisels began to live a life of crippling poverty. For ten years they toil to pay all their debts. Ten years after, while she is out for a walk, Mathilde spots Madame Forestier and opens to her what happened. It was the time when Madame Forestier informed her that the necklace she barrowed was an imitation worth 500 francs. (De Mauppasant)

Sometimes we only grasp a portion of the whole truth and proceed to believe that we already know it in all aspects. In the story, the Loisels toiled for ten agonizing years paying for the money they used to buy the necklace which they believed was an original one. It is absurd to pursue something with a misconception. They had a partial knowledge and a mistake. The knowledge was it was a necklace similar to the one that was lost, and the mistake was the lost necklace was believed to be an authentic one. You see here an illustration which explains to us that a partial knowledge about something makes everything different and wrong. In the experience of the disciples, they were pursuing something that they did not understand fully. Mathilde knew that what she lost was a necklace, but did not know that it was an imitation. On the other hand the disciples knew that Jesus is the messiah, but they did not understand the true meaning of Jesus Messiaship. If they were not warned not to tell anyone about Jesus, they could have shared and presented the Lord to others with a wrong understanding.

There are two challenges that I want us to sincerely consider. First, as God‟s children, I challenge you to study the word of the Lord seriously with eagerness to dig deeper and capture the whole picture and understand the truth, so that when we present the good news to the world it will give them the right perspective and eventually change their lives. Second, upon knowing the truth about the messiah we must take by heart what the Lord has commanded us to do in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (NASB) In the end when we meet our master he would say to us, “Good and faithful servants.”

Bibliography
Angier, Michael. “Is That Your Final Answer?” Success Networks International, 2001. http://www.trainersdirect.com/resources/articles/Misc/IsThatyourFinalAnswer.htm (accessed 26 January 2011).

Brooks, James A. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1991.

Cole, R. A. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

De Maupassant, Guy. East of the Web: Short Stories. “The Necklace.” http://www.eastoftheweb. com/short-stories/UBooks/Neck.shtml (accessed 29 January 2011).

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. United States of America: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002.

Bible Gateway. “New American Standard Bible.” http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New- American-Standard-Bible-NASB/ (accessed 2 February 2011).

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. “RMS Titanic.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic (accessed 28 January 2011).

Witherington, Ben III. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001

PRINCIPLES OF PRAYER UTTERED BY THE MASTER

PASSAGE: Matthew 6:9-13

Matthew mentioned some spiritual disciplines in this chapter such as giving, praying, and fasting. All of these virtues must be exercised within the perspective of genuine humility and not of hypocrisy.

After Jesus set the heart in the right perspective (1-8), he then proceeded by giving the right approach. This prayer is what we call today, the Lord’s Prayer. This prayer that Jesus taught His disciples is a model of both private and public prayer. This prayer model has two main divisions. The first division depicts God in relation to Man, while the second portrays Man and his Need.

DIVISION 1

OUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE YOUR NAME

Principle 1: Our prayer is based on the fact that we have a relationship with God.

Principle 2: Our prayer is uttered out of faith and reverence to God.

YOUR KINGDOM COME. YOUR WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.

Principle 3: We should be willing to receive and will continue to believe whatever answer that God will give. It’s His will, not ours. He is the King, and we are His subjects.

DIVISION 2

GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.

Principle 4: Prayer is an expression of daily faith-in relation to His providence in all aspects of life.

AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS, AS WE ALSO HAVE FORGIVEN OUR DEBTORS.

Principle 5: Receiving of forgiveness is inseparable from releasing of forgiveness.

AND DO NOT LEAD US INTO TEMPTATION, BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL.

Principle 6: Overcoming evil is not of our own, but it is of the grace of God done by the Spirit of God.

Reflection: Of the six principles you learned today, which one speaks to you the most?

Note: I used NASB in my study of the passage.

IMAGO DEI

By Edilberto Marasigan, Jr.

Passage: Genesis 1:26-28, NASB
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Observations
1. “Then God said” – Probably indicates the (a) last item of the creation; (b) the finale of all that God desired to create; (c) reason why those created earlier were created.

2. “Let us make” – This phrase was uniquely mentioned in relation to the creation of man. The rest of the creations were made solely out of God’s spoken word and pronouncement.

3. “Image” VS “Likeness” – The same or not? What does each of them mean? Or what do they mean?
a. Constable: "Image" and "likeness" are essentially synonymous terms. Both indicate personality, moral, and spiritual qualities that God and man share (i.e., self-consciousness, God-consciousness, freedom, responsibility, speech, moral discernment, etc.) These distinguish humans from the animals, which have no God-consciousness even though they have conscious life (cf. v. 24). Some writers have called the image of God man's "spiritual personality."88 In another sense man is the image of God (e.g., he rules and creates [procreates] as God does, thus reflecting God).89 The Fall obscured but did not obliterate the image of God in man. (Constable, 23)
b. Utley: “In my opinion, they are synonymous and describe that part of humanity that is uniquely capable of relating to God” (OT Study Guide Commentary, 35).
c. LDLS-A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis: The distinction between imago and similitude-the former referring to the essence of the human nature and the latter to its accidents or its endowment by grace.
d. Erickson: “This is a common Hebrew practice of parallelism.” (Christian Theology, 523).

4. “Let them rule over” – It is possible that the occurrence of this statement after the statement “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness” argues that the purpose for man being created in the image and likeness of God was for them to rule. However, it is also possible that, based on its grammar, that ruling is not the purpose but the consequence for bearing God’s image.

5. The most repeated words
a. “Created/Create/Make” (Verse: 4x; Chapter: 7x)
b. “Image/Likeness” (Verse: 4x; Chapter: 4x)
c. “Over” (Verse: 5x; Chapter: 11x)
d. Conclusion on the repetition: It is clear that God’s act of creating human beings in His image or likeness is within the context of ruling.

Concluding Statements
1. God made man
2. God made man in His image, according to His likeness
3. God made man in His image, according to His likeness, to rule
4. God made man in His image, according to His likeness, to rule over all other creatures, but not other human beings. For we are co-rulers.

Implications:
The context suggests that “Imago-Dei” has something to do with ruling. The implication of this is that you were made in God’s image so that you can rule, and because you have God’s image, therefore you should rule.

Millard Erickson presented 3 views of understanding the Imago-Dei: The Substantive View, The Relational View, and The Functional View (Christian Theology, 520-531). The Substantive View explains that the image of God is pertaining to a certain characteristic or ability like intelligence (Substance). The Relational View explains the Imago-Dei as the uniqueness of humanity as relational beings (Relationship). The Functional View pertains to Imago-Dei as lordship of mankind over all creations (Function). Among the three, the substantive and functional are closer to the exegetical conclusions. There must be something god-like (similarity, not identical) in human beings infused by the creator for the purpose of ruling the rest of the creations.

Wayne Grudem mentioned 5 specific aspects of our likeness to God: a) Moral Aspect-refers to our sense of right & wrong; b) Spiritual Aspect-refers to our immaterial spirits; c) Mental Aspects-refers to the ability to think and reason; d) Relational Aspects-refers to a deep interpersonal harmony; and e) Physical Aspect-this refers to the capability of some parts of the body, example-seeing, hearing, and smelling (Systematic Theology, 445-449).

How do all these affect us?
1. Our essence or value as human beings is not found in our own, unique ability and achievements in life, but on the truth that God has placed a part of Him in us. We should respond, therefore in humility and thankfulness to God, while pay respect at others around us because they too are bearers of God’s image-co-rulers.
2. It is a reality that we are, in many ways, different from each other but we can and have to celebrate the truth that we have something in common. The question that we should ask ourselves should no longer be “Who’s better between the two of us” but it should be, “How can we help each other to faithfully rule the creation of God.”
3. Question to ponder: Am I a good ruler? Am I a faithful bearer of God’s image and a faithful steward?

Bibliography
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Academic, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan, 1994.
Libronix Digital Library System 3.0c. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis.” 2000-2006. AT&T Corp.
New American Standard Bible-Updated. Outreach Edition. Anaheim, California. Lockman Foundation, 2007.
Sonic Light. “Notes on Genesis: 2014 Edition,” http://www.soniclight.com/constable /notes/pdf/genesis.pdf (accessed 6 November 2014).
Utley, Bob. “Bob Utley. “Genesis.” Study Guide Commentary Series, Old Testament, Vol. 5. Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 1998.

RADICAL ISLAMISM AMIDST CHRISTIAN SOCIETY

The world we live today is a planet of so many differences that disintegrate humanity. Religion, among the many aspects which is supposed to unite us, has become the greatest factor of division.  Islam is one of the most practiced religions on earth and is considered to be the fastest growing. It is so interesting to know that it began with an orphaned boy named Muhammad in the 7^th century AD.

Traditions would tell us that Muhammad was a religious man who regularly visits the cave of Mt. Hira for meditation and vigil. In one of his visits angel Gabriel appeared to him and commanded him to speak in the name of Allah. Muhammad refused to obey so the angel grabbed him on his neck and choked him. It was then when he began saying the words that became the words of Quran. It was the beginning of Muhammad’s life as a prophet.¹

^“In 630AD Islam began their invasion in Mecca. Mohammed and his troops then advanced their conquest and conquered three of the five Main Christian territories; Jerusalem (638AD), Antioch (640AD), and Alexandria (641AD). The only territories left to the Church were Rome and Constantinople. The expansion of Islam extended from the Indus River and to the boarders of China in the East to the Atlantic Coast of North Africa in the West. Their conquest was only stopped by the Byzantine Empire in the East when they were besieging Constantinople in 674”.²

Quran is the basis for the Muslim Faith. It is their Constitution for Humanity. It is one of the main sources of the Sharia Law. “All aspects of a Muslim’s life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Quran (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars). Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realize its individual potential.” ⁴ Thus Muslims see Sharia as divinely instituted, universal and timeless moral guidelines that must be implemented in all society.

Muslims bring Sharia Law with them in any land they will occupy believing that it is superior to any other law of the land. As a matter of fact it is a part of them! It is their guidance in all their dealings in personal, religious, professional and political aspect of life. Muslims are scattered all over the world today, and several areas are already experiencing the consequences of the Sharia Law implementation.

Europe (Sharia Law for the Non-Muslims, p1)

1.      There are times when traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray—a political result based on Sharia Law.

2.      Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity nor may Christians hand out literature. This is a political result based on Sharia Law enforced by British courts.

3.      In some English hospitals during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event), non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims to Islamic preferences is based on Sharia law.

USA (Sharia Law for the Non-Muslims, p2)

1.      No course at the college level uses critical thinking regarding the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia nothing about Islam may be criticized.

2.      Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. American authorities will not act even when presented with evidence. Polygamy is pure Sharia.³

WHAT THEN SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE OF THE BELIEVERS ABOUT THE RISING DEMAND OF MUSLIMS TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW IN THE AREAS WHERE THEY LIVE?

Sources:

¹Electronic Source, http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Origins/Beginnings?offset=0&max=1

²”The Middle Ages and The Papacy: Movements in Church History Notes.”

³Electronic Source, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

⁴Electronic Source, http://www.scribd.com/doc/35163467/Sharia-Law-PDF-for-non-muslims

Other References:

CBS News – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019405-503544.html

Council On Foreign Relation – http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORD

A Sermon on Matthew 21:28-31

preached in Life-way Christian Fellowship

Victory Mall, Monumento, Quezon City

By Edilberto A. Marasigan, Jr.

September 29, 2012

When it comes to words and action, there are four different kinds of people.  One is someone who says nothing and does nothing; another is someone who says a lot of things, but does not do anything; another is someone who does not say anything, but be careful because he’ll do something; and the last one is someone who says something and also does something. Of all the four, the most passive is the one who does neither saying nor doing. What I like the most is the one who has something to say does what he says. Indeed there are people who are action oriented. They are those who are not contented of just seeing and knowing things around them. On the contrary, there are also individuals who say a lot of things but do no action. If I am to choose between I would rather have the person who does what he says. In the Bible there is a parable that shows this picture-the parable of the two sons.

After healing the two blind men in Jericho, Jesus and His disciples went to Bethpage. There he instructed his disciples to make some preparations for their entrance in Jerusalem. When everything was set they went to the city and the crowd welcomed them by spreading their coats and some branches of trees on the road as they were shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest” (Mat 21:9 NASB). It was a chant of deliverance and of “hope.”[2] The city was stirred and the people were asking, “Who is this?” This can be an indication that they were some who have not heard about Him yet. Then He entered the temple and drove out those who were having business inside. Since Jesus personality & His capability were already known to many that time, then the people went to Him. Those who were sick were brought to Him and He performed healing upon them. As a result the children were shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David” (15). Because of how Jesus was welcomed by the people; what He did in the temple; and what those children proclaimed, the chief priests and the scribes were indignant.

The chief priests and the scribes asked Him, “Do you hear what these children are saying?”  They were pertaining to the statement “Hosanna to the Son of David.” Jesus responded quoting a portion of Psalm 8:2, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself.” The Bible tells us that after saying those words Jesus left them. But I believe that answer ignited anger on the priests & scribes, because Psalm 8:2 was a Psalm of David which describes about God. Jesus’ answer was a claim that He is God, something which they considered blasphemy and punishable by death.[3] Jesus left them after the conversation & went to Bethany and spent the night there.

The following morning Jesus saw a fig tree with leaves but did not have fruits on it. He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you" (18). Many scholars think that Jesus was cursing the fig tree, but the way I see it, He wanted to illustrate a very important fact to His disciples. Constable said, “He cursed the tree to teach them the lesson, not because it failed to produce fruits.”[4] The nature of a fig tree is that when it has leaves it means it has fruits; but that plant did not have. The fig was showing its leaves yet it remained unfruitful. As Constable mentioned that it demonstrates about “the hypocrites within the nation who show of bearing fruits but did not.”[5] He was referring to the chief priests and the scribes who received the highest respect in the temple. They were perceived to be very spiritual yet inside them they were barren and in reality they were unfruitful.

After the fig tree incident, Jesus went back to the temple. The chief priests and the elders of the people questioned Him. Remember that the day before; He left them after He uttered a statement that they considered as blasphemy.  Now that Jesus is back they were ready to face and challenge Him. They confronted Him with a question in verse 23, “By what authority are you doing these things and who gave you this authority?” This question reflects the perspective of the chief priests and the elders. Jesus disrupted the business within the temple and performed signs and wonders there. They were interrogating Him because they were the ones who were regarded to have the highest authority in the temple. In our modern way of saying it, “you should have passed through us before you did something in the temple. You get first our permission for you to be able to do what you did.” That question challenged the person of Jesus and the Father who sent Him. They cannot question His capability or power to do marvellous things thus they turned to His authority.  Power & authority are two distinct words. You can have power but no authority. For example, I have the power or ability to preach, but unless I am authorized by the pastor of the church to stand here, I cannot. Jesus displayed to them His power but they refused to believe His claim. The Lord answered them by a question also, “The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” This question placed them in the dilemma. If they will acknowledge that it was from heaven, then they should also acknowledge that Jesus’ authority was also from heaven. If they will say that it was from men, then the people will rise against them because the people regarded John as a prophet from God. To avoid losing face, they answered wisely but not wise enough, “We do not know” (27). This prompted Jesus not to address their inquiry about His authority. He then proceeded with a parable about the two sons.

One of the sons was given the order but verbally refused to abide. The other son was given the order and agreed to do it but did not actually do it. However later the son who said “no” did what his father wanted him to do.[6] Jesus then asked them a follow-up question, “Which of the two did the will of his father?” Obviously the answer should be the first one; the one who refused but later abided with the father. What does this parable mean? Jesus blatantly revealed to them what he meant. The tax collectors and the prostitutes were the ones who were declared unclean, immoral, and sinful before the society. On the other hand, the Pharisees, teachers of the law, scribes, the priests, and the elders are the ones who were perceived as righteous and godly people. But in the parable of the Lord the tax collectors and the prostitutes were represented by the son who first refused but later accepted and did the will of the father. On the contrary the religious leaders were represented by the son who said “yes” but did not do the will of the father. Therefore before the eyes of the father of the two sons, he will delight on the one who abided on his will. In the same way these people whom they regarded as sinners did something wrong before God, but they abided with the will of the heavenly Father, which is to believe in the one that He sent-John & eventually Jesus. “John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him...(32)” Thus Jesus concluded that the tax collectors and the prostitutes will inherit the kingdom of God instead[7] of the chief priests and the elders of the people.

            Matthew was trying to show that the leaders of Israel who were supposed to know Him through the Old Testament rejected Him instead. Their unbelief was a high contrast of what they were supposed to do. In this parable it is clear that one can inherit the kingdom of God only by abiding the will of the Father, which is by believing on the one that He sent; and neither by the amount of scriptural knowledge nor expertise nor by any position in the society and in the church. The chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were perceived to be the ones worthy of the kingdom of God, but they were surprised to hear that in the eyes of the Lord those whom they call sinners are the ones that will inherit it. The chief priests had great knowledge and powerful position but these two are not considered an account of righteousness; it is the obedience to the will of Father which is to believe in the one that He sent.

            Knowing something can never be enough, but it is by doing that something that you know. Like the priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people we might have acquired immeasurable knowledge, but unless we live it out, it will not do anything good. I have a question for you. There were ten frogs on the log, seven of them decided to jump. How many frogs were left on the log? The answer is, ten. There is a gap between potentiality and actuality. When the seven decided to jump it was nothing more than a decision-a potentiality. If they jumped already that is actuality. In the same sense, you and I have heard a lot of sermons and Biblical teachings in the past. Some even committed to the Lord to do it; but unless you really do it, then it remains only as a potential and it is nothing more than just a mere knowledge.

---

[1] Sermon Illustrations, “Action,” http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/a/action.htm (accessed 29 September 2012).

[2] Stephen M. Miller, The Jesus of the Bible (Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour Publishing Inc., 2009), 300.

[3] Wiki Answers, “If capital punishment for blasphemy is no longer enforced today by Jewish religion when did they stop enforcing it?” http: wiki.answers.com/Q/If_capital_punishment_for_                            blasphemy_is_no_longer_enforced_today_by_jewish_religion_when_did_they_stop_enforcing_it#ixzz27qDCzrX3 (accessed 28 September 2012).

[4] Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Matthew (Sonic Light, 2010), 287.

[5] Ibid.

[6] The ancient Greek texts of these verses contain variations that have resulted in different translations. The NASB has the older son saying yes but doing nothing. The younger son says no but repents and goes. The younger son does the father's will. The NIV has the older son saying no but then repenting and going. The younger son says yes but does not go. The older son does the father's will. Probably the interpretation of the parable influenced early copyists. The better reading appears to be the one represented in the NASB. (Thomas Constable, Notes on Matthew, 291-292).

[7] “The Greek verb proago ("get into . . .before" or "entering . . . ahead of") here means "enter instead of."” (Thomas Constable, Notes on Matthew, 292).

THE 1ST COMMANDMENT & ITS IMPLICATION TO ISRAEL & TO THE 21ST CENTURY BELIEVERS

A state or government without a law or governing rules is chaotic and unstable. The 21st century believers must bear in mind that the 10 Commandments are not simply moral rules issued by God, but they are laws to be strictly and perfectly observed in the emerging nation Israel. The 10 Commandments are the laws given by YHWH to Moses in Mount Sinai as part of the covenant that He established with His own people, whom He brought out of Egypt (Exodus 12:41). The Lord as the giver of the law made a prologue, which serves as a premise of the Decalogue,1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exodus 20:2, NASB).2 This statement became the foundation why Israel has to listen and obey the ten imperatives given to them.


The Nature of the Commandments
The 10 Commandments is so unique compared to the other codes written in the Ancient Near East. This set of imperatives embodies a relational aspect of both Human to God and Human to fellow Humans. There are two kinds of laws during the Old Testament times. They are the “Apodictic Laws” and the “Casuistic Laws.”3 Apodictic are laws with categorical imperatives. They begin with either “do” or “do not;” Casuistic laws on the other hand are laws for a certain condition or qualifying circumstances. The second kind or category can easily be identified with the conditional indicators “if & then.”4 The Decalogue belongs to the first category. This could mean that its essence is not based on any situation, but in any given condition, Israel has to follow all of it.


Explanation of the First Commandment
“You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). The statement is a strong emphatic prohibition of YHWH for His people to be contaminated by other deities. Since the Decalogue was given within the context of the covenant in which its essence is a relationship with YHWH, then it must be understood as an emphatic prohibition for the Israelites to be related with other gods. In relation to the prologue, the people should always remember that YHWH was the one who brought them out of the Egyptian bondage which lasted for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41). The length of their slavery should cause Israel to never forget their past in the land of Egypt, which at the same time will highlight the marvellous work of God in giving them freedom with the desire of bringing them to the Promised Land. This fact should become a reminder to Israel that the God, who is YHWH, who brought them out of slavery has to receive the full allegiance or loyalty. Israel has to be faithful to YHWH in the entirety of their existence. "God’s faithfulness to His people had already been demonstrated in the exodus, as indicated in the preface to the commandments. In turn, God required more than anything else faithfulness in the relationship of His people with Him."5 In a nutshell, the first commandment should be understood within the boundary of faithfulness in the context of relationship. Israel should only be related with YHWH. This relationship is expressed in constant worship from the inmost part of every child of God, which would also require a constant awareness of His exclusive claim of their faithfulness. YHWH does not only demand priority but exclusivity.


Implication to the 21st Century Believers
To worship God means to recognize the worth of God. God’s worth is who He is for what He is in His being and what He is in His doing: What He has done; what He is doing; and what He will be doing. There are two implications of the first commandment to us today. First, we should recognize God as the cause of all good things. As the Israelites should give God the recognition for the entirety of their existence and in all the events that take place; so as the believers of the 21st century should bring God the glory and honor for what has taken place, what is taking place, and what will be taking place in our corporate existence and in our individual lives. How can this be done? In our daily activities, we are confronted with two different causes. There is the immediate cause and the ultimate cause. The immediate causes can be our boss who gives us the salary or benefits, or our neighbours or friends who offer us gifts. They can be something or someone that we will honor because of what we received and experienced. The ultimate cause on the other hand is YHWH who is the main source of all good things. In life, it is good to thank the immediate causes, but we should never forget to give the glory to the ultimate cause of the blessings. Second, we should be constantly aware that our lives have its meaning only because of God. As Israel should remember about the freedom from their hopeless slavery in Egypt, we should also recall the fact that we were also in a hopeless case but we were redeemed by God through the blood of Christ. Every one of us must live in owe and awe of God. He owns us, and He sustains us. No one else should take His throne in our hearts. It is an exclusive claim of YHWH in every believer’s life.



1 The term used by the Greeks pertaining to the Ten Commandments.
2 All Bible verses quoted in this article are from NASB, except if it is indicated by the author.
3 Sonic Light, Notes on Exodus by Thomas Constable, 2nd ed., 1999-2012,  
   http://www.soniclight.com /constable/notes/pdf/exodus.pdf (accessed 16 September 2012).
4 Ibid.
5 Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker 
    Academics, 2001), p1172.

UNDERSTANDING JOHN 1:1

Introduction
Christianity over many centuries has defended its doctrines from many heretics that brought controversies to the church. One of the hottest issues that are being confronted with many questions is the doctrine of the trinity. Bible scholars have tried to explain through the different scriptural texts, in which one of those is John 1:1, to give an answer; however even in understanding the text many ended up with a wrong teaching. The proponents of Modalism claim that God is one being who revealed himself through the Son (Unitarianism). Bowman mentions that, “in some sense Jesus is God the Father.”1 On the contrary, the Jehovah’s witnesses believe that the “Word” was only created by the Father. Thus the word is not eternal. Orthodox Christianity understands the text precisely. The passage supports the truth that the “Word” is eternal and that it existed alongside with the Father.


This study will provide an exegetical analysis of John 1:1 to determine the nature of God regarding the traditional view of the trinity in its grammatical-historical context.


Understanding the Context of John 1:1
The historical-religious background of the authorship and writing of the book is not clearly stated by John; however it is observable that his audience were Gentile believers, because he frequently explains the Jewish customs he mentions in the book. The author was addressing a certain condition which involved a community of believers of Christ and the religious leaders in Palestine. The prominent religion of the people was Judaism which was based on the “Torah,” and belief in Jesus was a deviation from the practices of their faith. As an “orthodox-monotheistic” group the rabbis were challenging the faith of Jesus’ followers.2 In this gospel, John, addresses the issue by showing the truth about the Torah which is evident and revealed in the way he wrote the three different clauses of the passage.

John expresses, in three short phrases in a single sentence, a very significant idea about God. This thought reveals the reality of Christ’s deity and the implication of the Triune God. There are few noticeable things that can be of help to the current day readers in understanding the intent of the author and avoiding the misconceptions made by the heretics.

A - The Flow of Thought
The clauses are evidently connected to each other conveying the flow of thought which starts from the word “beginning”  and culminating in the last phrase “the word was God.”  The logical flow suggests that the author is striking the fact of the matter that the “word” is a pre-existent being, who, coexisted with God (Father). Therefore, the text should be translated as “the word was God.” The passage begins with the expression, “in the beginning” which echoes back to the first verse of the book of Genesis. John may not have intended to show a relation between the creation account and the prologue of his gospel, but he pertains to the origin of all things. When there was nothing yet, the Father, the source of everything, has already existed and the Word co-existed with Him.

B - The Absence of the Article
The first two clauses are usually acceptable to many scholars, but opinions vary regarding the third clause. These four words containing two nouns, in which one is articular while the other is anarthrous and a copulative verb are critical in relation to the doctrine of Christ and the Trinity. What could it mean when both nouns are preceded by an article? The clause will become “the word was the God.” The two nouns will have the same value.3 If this is the case, then there will be inconsistence with the second clause for the article “with” will imply togetherness but not oneness in terms of personality. Furthermore, with THEOS appearing first in the clause, if both nouns are articular, then the subject will be “God.” John’s statement will mean “God is the word” which will contradict with the second clause and will create a modalistic impression. If “God” is indefinite, then the clause will be “the word was a god;” on the other hand, if it is definite, within the context of the passage, it will somehow deny the Trinitarian view of the unity and relation between Jesus and the Father. So what is the significance of the absence of the article before the word THEOS? In Greek when the noun is anarthrous it can either be indefinite or qualitative.4 In this passage, John intended it to be qualitative, for when it is, it would mean that the noun shares the quality and essence of God. The “word” has all that “God” has. The absence of an article stresses the idea that the “word” is not the “God” mentioned in the second clause, but they share common attributes.

The Key Terms of John 1:1
To have a better framework of understanding, it will be necessary to consider a closer look into the key terms used by the author in conveying his intended message to his readers. There are three significant words that must be clarified. They are the “word” (logos), “God” (theos), and the copulative verb “was.” Determining the exact meaning and the function of each word will give clarity to the intention John.

A - The Meaning of the Word "logos" in John 1:1
There are many different usage of logos Louw and Nida gave the ranges of meaning of the word. It can mean a “statement” (a word saying);5 “speech” (the act of speaking);6 “gospel” (the content of what is preached about Christ);7 “treatise” (relatively formal and systematic treatment);8 and “Word” (a title for Jesus in the gospel of John [1:14] as a reference to the content of God’s revelation).9 Based on the context the best definition for the word logos is “Word.” It is consistent with the emphasis of the absence of an article in the last clause. Jesus, who is the “Word,” has the content of God’s revelation and as the ultimate revelation of the Father He has the very nature of the Father.

The meaning cannot simply be a statement or speech, because of the second clause (Ho logos ein pros ton theon), which implies a person. The third given meaning is “gospel.” Some might insist that this word pertains to the teaching that is spread about Christ; however it cannot be the sense of the statement. The gospel pertains to the works of Christ in relation the salvation of humankind. The passage is the beginning of the prologue in which it introduces Jesus Christ’s deity. Though it is a part of the content of the preaching about Christ yet its focus is on the nature of the very person of Christ in relation to the Father. The implication of this is that that Jesus does not only share the nature of the Father, but it supports the idea that there is more than one person in the Godhead.

B - The Meaning of the Word "Theos" in John 1:1

Theos could probably mean “God” (the one supreme supernatural being as creator and sustainer of the universe);10 and “god” (any one of the many different supernatural beings).11 Based on the context the best definition for the word Theos is “God.” The explanation for this meaning supports the phrase “in the beginning” which is related to the idea of a creator. Theos in this passage could not mean any other supernatural beings, or a goddess. The text suggests that God is the ultimate source and the main cause of all existence. Heretics would claim that there are discrepancies with the English translations of the Bible. Sheikh Ahmed Deedat of Islam said,

         The Greek is HOTHEOS (the same exact word given to Satan as God in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV  
         Bible Author wrote "god" for Satan instead of "God"), which means The God. The second time the
         word God is used,"....and the word was God," the word for God is TONTHEOS, which means "a
         god."12

This common controversy based on the case of the initial letter of “God” has been used by many false teachers to attack the deity of Christ. It is true that “god” is one of the given ranges of meaning for theos, but the context of the passage will not agree if the meaning of the word is only a “god.”


C - The Meaning of the Word "ein" in John 1:1
There are many given possible ranges of meaning for the word eimi (the lexical form of ein). One of those is “be” (to possess a certain characteristics);13 another is “identical;”1
“exist;”15 and “belong” (to belong to a particular class).16 The best meaning based on the context of the passage is “belong.” The definition of the meaning suggests the idea of distinction in the person of Jesus and the Father, but also implies their unity in a certain class, the Godhead. Though almost all given ranges of meaning would seem to fit with the context; yet “belong” is the most precise to convey the intention of John which is to show the deity of Jesus Christ and the nature of God.

Conclusion

John 1:1 was carefully crafted by the author to convey a very important truth about the deity of Christ and the nature of God. Each word was written just exactly where they should be. When an article is added to the anarthrous noun, it will become Unitarian in its essence; if logos is place at the beginning of the clause, the deity of Christ is at stake.17 John carefully chose the exact words and placed them in their exact position.
Based on the exegetical analysis of the passage, it is reasonable to say that the “Word,” then, who is Jesus Christ, is eternal and that He existed alongside with the Father having the same nature, essence and attributes.


1 Robert M. Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 17.
2 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 364.

3 Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (1973): 85.
4 James L. Huculak, “A Manual for New Testament Greek,” Zeta edition (class manual, International Graduate School of Leadership, Quezon City, Philippines, Trimester 2, SY 2010-11).

5Johannes P. Louw and Eugene E. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 390.
6 Ibid., 400.
7 Ibid., 417.
8 Ibid., 395.
9 Ibid., 400

10 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 137.
11 Ibid., 143.
12 Free Minds.org: Discover True Islam, “Ho Theos (God) and Ton Theos (god): Mistranslation in the Bible,” http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9834.0 (accessed 26 January 2012).
13 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 149.
14 Ibid., 150.

15 Ibid., 157
16 Ibid., 593.
17 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 28.
_______________________________
Bibliography

Bowman, Robert M. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ & the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker Book  

          House, 1989.

Free Minds.org: Discover True Islam, “Ho Theos (God) and Ton Theos (god): Mistranslation in the Bible.”
          http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9834.0 (accessed 26 January 2012).
Harner, Philip B. “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical
          Literature 92, no. 1 (1973): 85.
Huculak, James L. “A Manual for New Testament Greek”, Zeta edition, in NT600: Elements of Biblical
          Greek. Quezon City, Philippines: International Graduate School of Leadership; Term 2, SY 2010-11.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene E. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
          Semantic Domains. Vol. 1. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.