When your prayer talks back...

They say that God's answer to our prayers is mostly a yes, no, or wait.

I think, that sometimes, the answer to one's prayer is a question: do you think your God is enough?

Specifically....

Is God's grace sufficient for the trial(s) faced?
Will God provide enough?
Is God adequately qualified to do something about your situation?
Is God's arm long enough to save?
Should God be your only hope... or would you need a back-up plan?
Are His promises enough... when all you experience is loss, grief, and disappointment?

That, I suppose, was the answer to my prayer tonight... A question that is humbling because it can be hard to feel a "yes" with conviction even while your head knows the truth or at least what the Bible says. However, it is a question that also reminisces God's consistent faithfulness and comforts at once. A divine question, certainly.

Do you think your God - the God of Abraham, the God of Jesus Christ - is enough?

Matthew 14:22-33 : Storm on the Lake (Part II)

This is a continuation from my previous post: Storm on the Lake (Part I).

*****

Water. Storm. A boat. Chaos. A ghostly figure appears. Guess who?

Pic source

Yes. You've got it right.

Surely, it is...

Jesus, the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15-17).

Matthew, who used the gospel of Mark as one of his sources, tells the story a little differently from Mark. Some observations and reflections:

First, the disciples in Matthew's account come across as having a little more faith than the disciples in Mark's account - right up to the end. Well then, what happens at the end? The disciples in Matthew's account worship Jesus, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God." On the other hand, the disciples in Mark's account are described to lack understanding of the bread and fish miracle, having hardened hearts. I imagine that Mark, writing to a Roman Gentile audience, might have wanted to encourage those who thought their faiths were of less value compared to the Jewish Christians - and thus, his concluding emphasis. The "insider" Jewish disciples to whom the mystery of the Kingdom had been given could still have hardened, unbelieving hearts like Gentile "outsiders". Faith in Christ is faith indeed, whether one is Jew or Gentile. There is no distinction (cf. Rom 10:12-13). Actually Matthew does not necessarily contradict Mark by ending on a positive note. After all, the disciples in Matthew's gospel often worship despite doubting - e.g. when they worshiped Jesus on the mountain after His resurrection (28:17). The word "Truly" (14:33) not only gives us a picture of how emotional, overwhelmed, and grateful they were after the near-death experience... but also conveys an element of surprise, somehow. But why should the disciples be surprised that Jesus could calm the wind especially after the previous miracle? And so we find out from Mark's gospel that they hadn't understood the message of bread and fish, having hardened hearts (Mark 6:52). I don't think that "hardened hearts" means that they were unteachable or resistant to the revelations of God. Rather, they just failed to reflect deeply on the previous experiences/miracles in which God's glory was fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ - a good reminder for us. Anyway, Matthew's account thankfully ends with worship - which only God is worthy of as per the Law (Exodus 20:3-5). Some of Matthew's Jewish readers might still find it hard to believe that Jesus is the Messiah - but shouldn't they now at least be convinced that Jesus and the Holy One of Israel are one, and so, worship Him?

Secondly, the boat was being beaten (basanizo) by the wind in Matthew's account - while Mark ascribes basanizo to the disciples instead of the boat. Basanizo is better translated to "tormented". For the early Church, the boat which played an important symbolic role in the Old Testament (think Moses' boat-basket, Noah's Ark, etc.) became an ancient symbol for Church. The boat is a vessel of salvation - and traditional church buildings eventually named the central section of the Sanctuary "nave" rooted in the Latin word for boat, i.e. navicula. Clearly then, Matthew must have intended to expand the purpose of the event to address the issues which the early Church was facing - and will continue to face as it expands through time and space. The boat was to bring the disciples to "the other side" (14:22). The parallel account in Mark's gospel reveals that Jesus had meant to send His disciples to Bethsaida (a mainly Gentile city on the east side of the lake) and so, "the other side" could have had negative implications as far as Jewish readers were concerned. What comes to my mind here is Jonah's attempt to disobey God's call to Nineveh - the people he hated. He fled on a ship which also ran into a storm. Is the storm then merely a symbol for the chaos that the early Church faced - or does it also warn readers against disobedience?

I would say both.

Chaos. Chaos like back in the Exodus - dark, enslaving powers in close pursuit. The threat of death. Faith-sinking agents. But He who delivered Israel through the sea will now also deliver His Church through trials and persecution for He has power over chaos. In Hebrew thought, only God walks on the water (cf. Job 9:8; 38:16; Ps 77:19; Isa 43:16; 51:9-10; Hab 3:4). Jesus did what only God can do, and so, the hope of believers may be reaffirmed. You have not believed in vain... even with faith as small as a mustard seed. Jesus is God indeed. Emmanuel - God with us. Worship Him.

Disobedience. It may not be outward, but it sure begins in the heart. Rebellion. Resistance. That unwillingness to submit to Lordship.. Setting the human will above God's will, human priorities above God's commission. The gospels don't say but perhaps, the disciples were reluctant to go to the other side. Guess what? They ended up in Gennaseret instead of Bethsaida (Matt 14:34). Gennaseret, south of Capernaum, is a Jewish area on the same (western) side of the lake from which they departed. Did the storm keep the disciples from their original destination... or did the storm happen because the disciples had not wanted to make it to "the other side" in the first place? Food for thought.

Thirdly, Peter's water walking feat is covered in Matthew's gospel and not in Mark's as well as the other gospels. It must then be a matter of his target audience. Why did Matthew devote a quarter of his account of the storm to this special feature? What was his intention? In my opinion, we tend to misinterpret Matthew's message.

I hesitate to applaud Peter for his daring experiment and it's not because I am chicken. I now find it hard to believe that he did it out of awe and faith. "Lord, if it is you...." (14:28) in response to "Take heart; it is I..." (14:27) could be a little more like skepticism than awe. I mean... what would you do if an eerie ghost tried to convince you that it meant no harm? I would demand for some sort of proof that it was telling the truth... well unless, it identifies itself as the ghost of a good, trusted and dead friend. And then I would still want proof! This is an unbiblical, near-heresy illustration, but do you see where I am coming from? Of course, the supposed "ghost" on the Galilean lake identified himself as Jesus - the one who had just multiplied bread and fish for 5000 grown male stomachs and thousands more. Alive, fearsome, and with apparent power over creation, chaos and death.

My question is this: should Peter have left the boat in the first place? Was he just being courageous, enthusiastic and... typically reckless? Or was he yielding to the satanic temptation that Christ had resisted in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6-7) i.e. to put God (in Peter's case, Jesus) to the test - because he wasn't sure if Jesus could be trusted? There must have been (and there still is) within the Church a dangerous tendency to want special experiences and test God in order to believe the word that has already been given. Matthew might have wanted to address that. To be fair, this was pre-resurrection; the disciples couldn't have been certain despite the many signs that Jesus is God Incarnate. And so, the Lord showed mercy by commanding Peter to "Come"... However, He later gently rebuked Peter in 14:31: "O you of little faith, why did you doubt (distazo)?"

Distazo seems to not merely refer to the fear Peter felt when he was distracted by wind and momentarily shaken in his faith. Rather, it refers to Peter's indecision over who Jesus was, His credibility, and the given word: "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid." (14:27) Distazo connotes vacillation - or a sort of fickle-mindedness. Distazo is about the battle in Peter's heart even before he left the boat... or earlier i.e. while he was distributing bread and fish to hungry people. And distazo prompted Peter to request a sign: "Lord, if it is You..." Because Peter was seen to be the foundational rock of the Church following his confession (which only Matthew among the gospels records in chapter 16:13-20), Matthew could have highlighted Peter's indecision in order to warn the early Jewish Church against the humanly weakness - distazo. God has given the word. Hard as it is, will we take Scripture as "living and active..." (Heb 4:12) - even when God doesn't seem real and present with us in our storms?

Contrary to contemporary understanding, remaining in the boat doesn't have to mean faithlessness. Faith may not be walking on water. Faith may not be asking for spectacular signs or looking to defy the laws of gravity - because the truth be told, special experiences hardly help us when crisis strikes again. Rather, faith is standing firm in one spirit and striving like-mindedly (cf. Phil 1:27-28) with the rest of one's community of faith in the tormented boat. After all, it was He who has authority over the wind and waves who also bids us not to fear.

Storm on the Lake. Matthew 14:22-33. A very interesting passage to reflect on, even after reading it countless times.

Matthew 14:22-33 : Storm on the Lake (Part I)

The last I blogged of the Gospel of Matthew was 14:15-21.

That was more than a year back. Golly-schmolly. Where has time gone?

Anyway, yups. I got distracted from my study of Matthew (it happens), And wound up somewhere else in the Bible. It was a long break. Thought I would get back to Matthew for the New Year. 2016.

Matthew 14:22-33. Storm on the lake. Peter walks on water.


Before he walked on water - a detail in history which only Matthew was adamant not to spare (cf. Mark 6:45-42, John 6:16-21) - there was the miracle of bread and fish in 14:15-21. And I am revisiting it in Part I.

Pic source

Apparently, there are circles within the universal Church which hold that the real deal was not the physical multiplication of bread and fish. Rather, the real deal was the guiltifying of five thousand men (besides women and children) to stop hoarding food under their robes... and thus, share with those who had nothing to eat. In other words, this tradition, so entirely divorced from the supernatural significance of the event, implies that Jesus compelled the people in the crowd to sort of lift up their robes and pull out their stash. Food passed.... from the hands of those who had surplus to the hands of those who had none (including Jesus and His disciples). A plausible explanation that compromises on the following facts, at least:

1. The disciples implied that the people did not have food with them - and Jesus did not disagree. He did not suggest that it was...psst... customary for the people to hide food under their robes. Plus if the people were so hungry, wouldn't they have taken food out to eat anyway? You don't just starve to deny your neighbour a morsel, right?  "You give them something to eat," Jesus said to His disciples. (14:15-16) I don't think He said that smirking, aware of what His disciples were oblivious to, i.e. the food stashes. Because there were none.

2. The conversation regarding food was between Jesus and His disciples. Not between Jesus and the crowd. When Jesus finally addressed the crowd, it was to direct them to sit down on the grass (14:18). He didn't entreat them to reveal or share anything.

3. Food passed...and kept passing... from the hands of Jesus who gave thanks and broke the loaves.... to those of His disciples. The disciples then distributed them to the people. (14:19) Food from Jesus to 5000 people and their wives and children. Not from people to people. Not from people to Jesus.

The original intent of the multiplication was not to teach the people to share. Or even to convince the people that Jesus was to be king right there and then (cf. John 6:15). If ALL four gospel writers made room for this flabbergasting event in their gospels (the one and other miracle narrative that appears in all four gospels is Christ's resurrection) and described it as a miracle, it must be a miracle. Perhaps, what made this miracle so outstanding compared to the previous miracles (amazing as they were) was the display of Jesus' creative power that resonated with YHWH's provision of manna in the wilderness - and indeed, the Gospel of John ties these two events together. (In healing the sick, raising the dead, changing water into wine, etc. something was restored, amended or transformed that had already existed. Only in this particular miracle, consumables were stretched far beyond their true potential and even replicated with non-existent ingredients.) It was especially in this event, I think, that Jesus was portrayed as the "image of the invisible God" by and through whom all things were created, who is before all things, and in whom all things hold together..." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Jesus = God. The Messiah... Son of David... not just any earthly king but God incarnate. I wonder if the disciples ever saw that connection.

With this image in mind, Matthew's readers are transported into the next scene.

To be continued in Storm on the Lake (Part II).

The Zoo, The Mundane, and Advent 2015

Hubby's company organised a family day event at Taiping Zoo last Saturday.

Armed with an adventurous zeal that braved the scorching sun, funky smells, and predictable public toilets (at least on my part) for Sophie's enrichment's sake - we decided to join in.

The sun was scorching hot. The zoo smelled of the animals' BO, manure, and other organic things. The public toilets were... as predicted. There were people everywhere - Ben's colleagues and their families. I wasn't too comfortable with having to greet people at every corner. And Sophie was cranky because we had scooped her out from bed unusually early that morning, nap time wasn't anytime soon, and she wasn't too happy about having to sit in her stroller while we walked through the length and breadth of Taiping Zoo. We did allow her to get out of her stroller once in a while, but the toddler hazards of the walkway conditions (uneven and bumpy tar roads, broken pavements, etc. - Malaysian tourism really needs to work on this, I think) and Sophie's secret plans to abandon us whenever we let our guards down made her stroller curfew rather necessary. Even so, hubs and I were soooo exhausted at the end of our trip that I've made up my mind to avoid zoos at all costs for at least a year. But who knows, right? When the adventurous zeal returns, we might be back all too soon. After all, I would love to take Sophie on a boat-ride at the Taiping Lake Gardens.

Still... I think that Sophie did enjoy being with us as much as we enjoyed being with her.

The giraffe that watched Sophie (and her muesli) with great interest for a while... till the zoo keeper brought its lunch.

Throughout our trip, I couldn't help wondering what it must feel like being one of the animals in the zoo. While I, being a high-maintenance urban dweller with posh tastes and a preference for inorganic, sterile environments (sounds sad), instinctively pitied the animals in their restrictive pens within a hot, funky-smelling zoo - there must be so much more to their kind of life than meets our senses. Thinking of it, can you imagine spending your life in a small, cramped, artificial version of your natural habitat - with zero privacy, few opportunities to run about freely or learn, and no hope of seeing your loved ones again? What happens to the animals when they aren't cute to look at anymore or old? What happens to the animals that eat trash thrown into their cages by insensitive zoo-goers who are more interested in circus shows than the welfare of the animals?

Food for thought.

I'm so sorry if I offend the zoo lovers. I believe you who are pro-zoos have your own good reasons to support zoos and you are welcome to do so. Even I am thankful for the opportunities that zoos have afforded us, visual learners, to get to know wild animals and love nature, especially when we were children.

It's just that.... the sight of huge animals pacing back and forth in their pens, no longer seeking a way out of the mundane, humdrum way of things simply because there was no way out, made me rather emotional.  

"Take me home... please?"

But zoos will continue to exist. With my daughter, I hope that I will be able to do my part (no matter how minuscule) in making the captivity of these beautiful creatures count. I don't only want her zoo experiences to entertain and wow her momentarily but to cultivate a love and concern for God's creations. To inspire her to be a responsible student, steward, and advocate of Earth's divine masterpieces.

Speaking of the mundane... and in light of our waiting on the Lord amidst our various trials...

I will end this increasingly emotional post (at least for me) with a short reflection on the season of Advent (which began on Sunday) that I wrote for a devotional:

"Matthew 1:1-17 – A Child Born in God’s Perfect Time

We begin our Advent reflections with Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus - three major divisions, each listing fourteen generations of human roots. It is interesting that the lists found in Matthew 1:1-17 don’t match those in Luke 3:23-38. Considering that Matthew’s gospel was written from a Jewish viewpoint for a Jewish audience who were familiar with Old Testament prophecy, many contend that Matthew’s unique genealogy must have served as a literary device to portray who Jesus, son of Joseph, was. Abraham’s journey of faith pointed to Jesus – the promised Saviour for all who believe. The line of David, who was the central kingly figure of the Old Testament, pointed to Jesus – the promised Messiah King. The five women honoured amongst Jesus’ ancestors were paragons of faith, if not virtue, ethnicity, or social rank; they point us to the requirement of entering Jesus’ gracious Kingdom. Yet, also significant in the genealogy is the mention of Jeconiah (vv.11-12) who was one of the last kings of the Davidic dynasty. As a result of his sins, Jeconiah’s male descendants had been disqualified from inheriting David’s throne (Jer 22:24-30). Matthew then could have also been implying this: had Jesus been the biological son of Joseph, He too would have been disqualified, and so He wasn’t. The story of Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit immediately following the genealogy highlights the necessity of Jesus being the divine Immanuel (meaning “God with man”) as well as human. God was made flesh in order to reclaim what Abraham’s descendants had lost through disobedience – and ultimately their potential to bring salvation to all nations. The Jews needed Jesus. We need Jesus.

During the next four weeks of Advent, we will anticipate Jesus’ second coming in light of His first coming as Imannuel. God was with us in the fullness of His time; God is with us today as we observe the holiness of the season in our daily lives; and God will be with us at the end of time. Blessed Advent!

Prayer:

Advent God, as we journey with You through the season, refresh the portrait of the Messiah King that is in our minds so that we may wait on Him with even greater joy, hope and expectation. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen." 

Play

I was in a discipleship class with my pastor on Wednesday when she asked us to describe our experience with the previous week's assignment - what we learned from it about ourselves and God's Kingdom.

The assignment required us to play. We were to discipline ourselves to engage in any sort of enjoyable activity that did not qualify as work (some of us are workaholics) and do it at least once a day.

The one-week prescription was supposed to be that simple: let down your hair and enjoy a guilty pleasure in the sense that you would naturally qualify it as "wasting time". Did it even need to be a discipline?

Yes, it did. At least for most of us.

We are adults. Disrupting the rhythm of our grown up routines with play of the spontaneous, and seemingly aimless kind makes us uneasy. It humbles us. We are forced to stop thinking about the future for a while - to lose the control that we think we have over our lives. But thereafter, there is freedom. We can do what we want, do what we love, and love what we do. We embrace the magic that tells us that fairy tales are plausible. And while we do, we indulge in the rest a little child enjoys (given a normal childhood of course), unsaddled by burdens to save the world. Or gain the world.

"...Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 18:3)

A child who plays is a child whose most basic needs have been satisfied. She trusts that her next meal (or nap) will be there when she needs it, and thus, plays unconcerned with time and the tomorrows.

We can't enter the Kingdom without such faith in the Father - that the Right Person will take good care of us. This Right Person is in control of our lives, our problems, our future, and our salvation.

The discipline of play opens our eyes to how much control we still try to keep to ourselves.

A blessed experience

Yups. So I preached in my church (evening service) on Sunday. It was my first time.

God was very gracious and merciful to help me. 

I had a rough week leading up to Sunday and consequently, drove to church on my own, tearful, moody, and a ball of nerves. (Sophie was still having a diarrhoea, so I made the hubs stay at home with her. How I missed them!) My laptop couldn't connect to the projector - and so, the visual person, SH, had to help me change slides throughout my sermon. Thank God for the foresight to print out a copy of my preaching script so that SH could read along and change slides at the appropriate parts! In the middle of my sermon, the LCD projector went on strike. Murphy's Law. Despite all that, Zephaniah 3:9-20 was preached, I didn't feel too scared, the people gave me the most encouraging feedback, and so, I rejoice.

To all who have been praying for me, thank you!

On a blogging hiatus and some updates

Oh wow. So I haven't been blogging for a week. On some kind of blogging hiatus, I am... what with Sophie recovering from a cold, my milk supply depleting fast (I have been pumping more frequently but it doesn't seem to help - maybe it's a bit too late), and my work taking up a huge chunk of my awake-and-free hours.

Having written 6 out of 7 articles for the Advent publication which I said I would write for, I decided that I will only blog Advent when it's Advent, in order to avoid confusion to those who go along with the liturgical calendar.

Well, like a dear friend said, Christmas comes early for me this year. Meditating and writing on the meaning of Christmas so early in the year is strange - but I appreciate it, especially while I am being tried in every sense of the word. Christmas is not just about reminiscing the crib in the manger, angels we have heard on high, and jubilant shepherds. Neither is it merely an affair of Christmas trees, giving presents, and singing carols. Rather, it points us toward a coming reality - when the Heavenly Christmas Celebrity returns to vindicate God's sons and daughters of whom He is the firstborn, no longer as the baby in the manger but a victorious warrior, glorious and exalted. In light of that eternal Christmas Day, we brave our storms, rejoice in our exile, and remember to love even when it is the hardest. People say that Christmas should be every day. I know what they mean, but I don't really agree. I honestly don't want every day of the year to be like the 25th of December (or Christmas Day would cease to be special). However, I would like my anticipation of Christmas to not only encompass the festivities and ambience but also something more eternal. I would like to anticipate less passively and more actively in the sense of rejoicing in the turmoils of life. It's really hard - and I am more down than up nowadays - but yeah. God help me.

Anyway, I am wondering if I should start a new blog where I would be able to blog more specifically about Sophie and motherhood. Or if I should continue with what I'm doing here on Woollylifestock. What do you think?

New assignments for May-July

As I am part of a team of writers who are writing devotional articles for an Advent publication this year, my blog will feature my musings/studies on Luke 1 in the coming weeks. This would help me sharpen my perspectives, translate my academic work for a non-academic audience (if needed), and write more succinctly in light and context of a broader readership. As usual, any feedback and every prayer will be appreciated much.

Well then... I've got 7 articles due in mid-July. Wish me luck, folks! 

Dance

One of the things that fascinate me most about Sophie is her sensitivity to music - particularly rhythm.

Rhythm. Timed beats and pulses that make up the repeating patterns of movement and rest throughout a piece or song. Drums, rap and percussion. They make her dance. It seems only natural to her to stop what she is doing and let the rhythm take her over.

It never fails to amuse us whenever Sophie interprets R&B in the middle of the crowded shopping mall. She lingers in the delightful moment there and then, without a care in the world. You could watch if you like - or not - and it wouldn't matter. Sways, bobs and rocks. So real and beautiful the way she is. Sometimes, I am unaware of the music in the background until she dances. This proves how possible it is to hear but ignore the message spoken, the songs sung... the voice in the wilderness.

Then again, this is what childhood is about. Lingering in the present simply because the future is too faraway. It encompasses the ability to savour simple pleasures amidst the ordinary and humdrum - something that we seem to grow less and less adept at as we age. We no longer play games, jump into puddles, pop the bubble-wrap, chase butterflies, play peekaboo, dance in the rain, and suck our thumbs just because they taste salty and good. Lingering in the present also encompasses taking time to appreciate a given situation - good or bad. Lingering in the present is hard to do because of the pressure to live for the future. We are distracted by the future. We save up the moolah that we would have spent willingly on candies when we were kids, in order that it goes toward bigger and better things in store. We are bent on pursuing independence. We fidget in the face of uncertainties. Crying, we say, is a waste of time because it achieves nothing. We race each other to the finishing line, just because the winner takes it all. (As a mom, I fret unceasingly over baby milestones, toilet-training, tantrums, and Sophie's education.) I am of course not advocating that we remain in the naivety of childhood. Grow up, we must (and so must Sophie). I am also not saying that we should live frivolously, unconcerned about the future. Like it or not, future's horizon draws near; and we must prepare for it in the present. The mistakes of the past should not be repeated (easier said than done). However, in growing up and in anticipating the future, it is important that we lose not the awe.... neither are we distracted from the signs of God's goodness in the present. Unless we imitate little children in that aspect, we will miss the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt 18:3). The Kingdom is not just in the future. It is now. It has come. Eternity has embraced time because the eternal Word was made flesh to dwell among the timed Creation. In the arms of Eternity, Time is redeemed so that the tears of the past and the blows of the present make sense. Past and present cannot but join hands and march forward into that everlasting celebration when the King returns.

How sweet it is that the Creator of time - He who lives in a timeless eternity - limits Himself to tarry with us in our present circumstances - to comfort, guide, and empower.  What is a thousand or two thousand years to Him? And yet His fingerprints are found in the very details of human history. In our todays. He is with us in our battles, disappointments and victories throughout time. He saves and delivers. He throws in the lovely surprises for us to stumble upon. And He gives us the rhythm meanwhile - so that we may tap our feet and dance if we listen intently - and find its beats. As we sway, nod and rock in our authentic little ways, may we trace His patterns that give us hope - the assurance of His presence and grace.

He dances with us. In the brilliant pink sunset as well as night-fall. In the pretty field of flowers as well as over the dry, thorny ground. Upon the lofty mountain-top as well as in the gulfs of wilderness. In the boat and out of the boat. In sunshine and storm. Let us not miss the signs.

Future assignments

After a short maternity break from ministry (with my baby is reaching 10 months soon).....

... I am returning to my writing and preaching.

Our pastor spoke to me yesterday (with my hubby grinning in the background) and we explored the possibility of me standing in the pulpit more often in the future. Yikes. The thought of it both excites and terrifies me. I've got to admit that I'm a little bored and restless after having not worked my brains to a mush for so long.

Without a doubt, this does mean that I will have to be more disciplined in Word study, journaling and prayer from now onward. Your prayers are appreciated much. <3

Matthew 14:15-21 : Five Loaves of Bread and Two Fish

"15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food." 16 Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."17 "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered. 18 "Bring them here to me," he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

What really intrigues me about the story this time is Jesus' answer in 14:16:

"They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."

If I had been one of the twelve disciples, I would have been just as incredulous (and sarcastic). Annoyed too, perhaps. 

We give them something to eat? So easy meh... Whose problem are they anyway?

"We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish..." (14:17)

...for your info. How sensible your assignment is!

We give them something to eat. Sure. Who does He think we are? Makers of manna? Growers of money trees? It would take at least two hundred denarii to buy bread for so many people - half a year's of hard-earned wages, or more (cf. Mark 6:37). Let's see, do you even have that much money?

Five loaves and two fish would do well to feed a multitude of ants. When was the last time five loaves and two fish equals one full stomach - to make no mention of 5000 stomachs? Don't you see how hungry the people are?

What are we going to do with 5000 people in a remote place when night falls? Tuck them into bed? (cf. Luke 9:12) 

Overwhelmed by such strong emotions, I imagine that it would have been difficult for me to resist rising to the challenge: "Bring them here to me." (Matt 14:18) 

Yeah, whatever. Let's see what you can do...

While I always saw this story as a testimony of God's power to move mountains even when we have little to offer Him (and He certainly does - for He is never limited by our resources or human capabilities or faith), I am seeing the story from a new angle today. First, I am reminded that God's answers to our prayers which come through Scripture, prayer moments, circumstances and the community of faith - simple as they may be - might not always resonate with our human rationale. As long as we question incredulously (or defensively) His wisdom and ways, we will be limited in our capacity to hear His comfort, rejoice over the miracle at hand and be stilled by His peace. Secondly, we know that God surpasses all impossibility. You and I have been amazed by Him many times and thus, have no reason to doubt Him. However, our faith often wavers in the face of pressing needs; we think that we know the best solution and are outraged when God does not seem to want to make it easy for us. If only we had the "foolish" resolve to trust and obey God despite the most impossible realities we face. What opportunities He gives us to be awed by His power and love! 

Reflecting on the season I am currently in (its difficulties as well as joys), I asked myself if I could say confidently that Jesus is enough for me. 

No, but I want to. Jesus is enough for me.

Matthew 13:52: Scribes trained for the Kingdom of heaven

Kingdom of heaven.

Matthew, among the Gospel writers, was the only one to use the phrase, "Kingdom of heaven", which was distinctively Jewish. It alluded to the Messianic Rule under which every Israelite aspired to live - Yahweh's divine order on Earth. The people of the kingdom were thought to be subjects of an anointed Davidic (human) king - who was expected to be a fierce warrior, conqueror and judge. Matthew, however, endeavoured to paint his Jewish audience a very different picture of this kingdom, and thus, challenge their ancient presuppositions of what it was (is) like. The Jews, especially the readers, doers and teachers of the Law, assumed superiority over the Gentiles and sinners (including tax collectors, with whom Matthew could identify) in terms of their Kingdom citizenship. Matthew opposed such self-sufficient assumptions by highlighting frequently Jesus' emphasis on repentance, mercy and humility as proper responses to the Kingdom of heaven at hand. Furthermore, belonging to the Kingdom of heaven obligates one to join Christ the King in His mission to make disciples of every nation (Matt 28:18-20).

Matthew continued to weave the message of his gospel and brandish the sword of his pen against the aforementioned Jewish assumptions throughout the 13th chapter, which records one of Christ's major discourses about His Kingdom. The literary context was perhaps intended to confront Matthew's Jewish audience with the fact that there were many who would read or hear the word of the Kingdom - but would never truly understand it.... because they assumed that they knew better and so, scorned the devotion to Jesus Christ that characterised Christian discipleship. They would be shaken when tested because they had not given themselves to Christ; the word of His Kingdom had not borne the fruit of hope in their lives. In fact, they were in danger of riding in the same boat as the "law-breakers" (cf. 13:41).

A parable that closes Christ's discourse in Matthew's gospel still addresses us, Christians, today: "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the Kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (Matthew 13:52)

A scribe in Jesus' time was a Jewish religious teacher, preoccupied with the interpretation, exegesis and teaching of Scripture. A master of a house played host to guests, had authority over his servants and possessed "treasure" (13:52) - a storehouse filled with provisions for the household that was at his full disposal in time of need.

I don't know much about household provisions for a family in Jesus' time. Rather, I know a little more about provisions for a baby in my time. I am an exclusive pumping mother when it comes to breast-milk. Whatever milk I express via breast pump either goes straight into my baby's tummy or into the refrigerator/freezer. It would be unwise of me to only feed my baby freshly pumped milk at the expense of the milk in storage. It would also be imprudent of me to only feed my baby refrigerated/frozen milk and never freshly pumped milk (while I can still afford to), which has the best flavour and nutritional content. No - in order that she receives the benefits of freshly pumped milk and that I might yet refresh my milk stock (and not allow previously stored milk to expire and go to waste), I feed her a balanced "diet" of freshly pumped and refrigerated/frozen milk every day. Likewise, I understand Matthew 13:52 as Jesus' invitation to His disciples back then to have a balanced "diet" - i.e. be both preoccupied in learning God's word as any Jewish religious leader would, as well as to be discipled in the principles of the Kingdom of heaven that was at hand. (The Greek word for "trained" in 13:52 implies personal discipleship rather than the acquisition of new skills.) The new was not to replace or displace the old. Rather the new was to supplement the old. This was the "formula" for a successful ministry, not to mention a good life. Matthew's audience needed to be convinced that personal discipleship was now to go hand-in-hand with Jewish Scripture scholarship - a synergy that afforded hope for themselves as well as those whom they eventually discipled.

Reflecting on Matthew's gospel message in my modern context...

I was reminded of how important it is for lay ministers to be scholars as well as disciples in the sense of passionate devotion to growing in Christlikeness. Too often, lay ministers think that intensive biblical studies and seminary training are only for the clergy and PhD pursuers! Matthew 13:52 challenges me additionally to discover those Kingdom gems in the Old Testament as well as the New. The idea is balance. As we partake in Christ's great commission for the Church which has extended through time and space, beyond the boundaries of culture and tongue, may we be faithful stewards of the entire word of God.  

Towards Advent 2014: Treasure hidden in a field (Matt 13:44)

Original picture source

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."

"Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."

(Matthew 13:44-46)

I personally don't think that the man and merchant mentioned in these verses represented Jesus Himself, even though quite a few Bible commentators tend to interpret those as such. The metaphors of the special kingdom that He portrayed weren't meant to imply its ruler or recipient as much as they implied the kingdom's nature.

Like treasure hidden in a field. Ancient Palestine encompassed land that bridged so strategically Egypt and other great empires that it was often invaded and ravaged. The unstable political and military scene explains why it was common practice for the people to hide their money, belongings and treasure while they could, the ground being a common hiding place. Sometimes, they died or were captured before they could retrieve the items that they had buried. The buried items would then remain underground, unknown to the land's new owners, until they were stumbled upon accidentally - likely by peasant labourers working the land. Treasure hidden in a field was the peasant's ultimate dream (and dilemma) as well as a significant motif in local fables and folklore. It is therefore interesting that Jesus had employed it to highlight a certain aspect of His Heavenly Kingdom.

The inaugurated Kingdom - unseen and yet real and glorious - is to be discovered. Whether the find is deliberate or not, its finder must choose to invest in it or he would be a sad fool at its consummation. The man in the story covered it up because he was not yet the owner of the land from which the treasure was unearthed; he would be, in fact, a thief to keep the treasure that belonged rightfully to the land's owner. Therefore, he sold all he had in order to buy up the field - and hence, the treasure within. He probably savoured it slowly after he took possession of the field. Here is where the metaphor is limited, like all metaphors are in one way or another. Readers of Matthew's gospel are not to concern themselves too much over the loss of the original owner of the field or if he knew about the treasure; neither was he a fool to have sold the field with the hidden treasure in it (for all we know, the buyer could have paid a very high price for it - it was all that he had, Jesus said). Rather, our focus should be on the main character - the man who bought - whose attitude, commitment and courage towards the treasure indicates the priority that God's Kingdom should have in our hearts. Are we so convinced of the authenticity, reality and inevitability of the Kingdom that we pursue it eagerly regardless of what it costs us? The merchant's sacrifice (v.45-46) serves to emphasise the joy that one should have and can expect in embracing the Kingdom, of which Christ is King. The Kingdom is worth our denial of the world (and in some cases, worldly acquisitions, recognition and acceptance) in order to be part of it. That is what the Kingdom is like. 

With Advent just around the corner, it does us good to reflect on the manner of the Kingdom we have embraced as Christ's believers.

My head tells me that it is true... but I want to be fully convinced in the heart that my faith is worth every tear that has fallen on its account, every cost that I've counted and every life decision I have made for its sake. Perhaps, I could begin by remembering that a Man was sent on Earth to die for my (our) sins. And this Man was the Son of God. The kingdom I have embraced is His - a kingdom like treasure hidden in a field. Not in just any field, and certainly not in a football field - but in a field of ancient, war-torn Palestine.

This shall be my Advent journey this year.

Matthew 12:1-14: Jesus, Lord of the Sabbath

According to the Old Testament, God's manna provision and test for Israel in post-exodus wilderness pointed to a command that foreshadowed one of those of the Decalogue at Sinai (Ex 20) and subsequently, became a recurrent theme in Scripture - i.e. keeping Sabbath.

Israel was to anticipate, in its daily gathering of manna, the seventh day of the week and to prepare for it. It was to be a day of solemn rest, holy to the LORD (cf. Ex 16:23) - a way to participate, unmistakably, in God's planned rhythm of Creation (cf. Gen 2:2-3). Sabbath interrupted Israel's labours, so gracious they were compared to those which they were accustomed to back in Pharaoh's Egypt; I imagine that it would have been both a testimony of their deliverance and spiritual formation while Israel's faith in the LORD found concrete expression in their act of resting. In observing Sabbath even after its wilderness days, Israel both remembered and trusted the LORD. Sabbath was about His mercy and grace. It also affirmed Israel's identity as a people whom God had chosen and redeemed, a people whose needs He would provide as a Father even as they rested from commercial pursuits.

The weekly Sabbath anticipated as well as commemorated. It anticipated the eternal cessation of time, the consummation of God's promise that the forefathers "saw and greeted from afar" - Christ and thus, the eternal seventh day. The weekly Sabbath was a foreshadow of what man needed ultimately - what man had been made for. And the Word became flesh - and dwelt among us. Eternity had come to kiss us in the present - and its overlap with linear time continues to affirm man of the glorious future that is to come when the weekly Sabbath would no longer be relevant.

However in Matthew 12, we glimpse how the intimacy and spirit of Sabbath had been quenched in the religious leaders' legalistic execution of Shabbat traditions in Jesus' time. The well-intentioned parameters of such traditions had been carved out by ancient Jewish rabbis, who reformulated exegetically what "work" (and thus "rest") in the Hebrew Bible encompassed. Human need and compassion for the needy (even animals, cf. 12:12) were good reasons to break the traditions. However, the Pharisees were adamant that no exceptions should be made, and so, they condemned Jesus' hungry disciples for snacking on gleaned grain and Jesus Himself for healing on the Sabbath.

Jesus made a radical statement: "the Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbath." (Matt 12:8). Another assault of the Pharisees' prescriptions and pride.

Among some of the things that this statement would mean (by no means an exhaustive list) are as follows:

1. Jesus is the lord of the Sabbath. In this passage, Jesus did not mention explicitly that He was the Son of Man, but Matthew's gospel does refer to Him as the Son of Man, a messianic title (cf. Daniel 7:13). Jesus is sovereign over Sabbath, and thus....

2. ...Jesus is the one who has authority over all Sabbath traditions. He has the right to extend hospitality to whoever He wishes on the Sabbath.

3. Jesus is God - because God who delivered Israel from Egypt, was the lord of the Sabbath which He ordained as sacred time and ruled. He was greater than the temple (Matt 12:6), where God was worshiped and priests were justified to "profane" Sabbath (12:5) by the nature of their work. (The Sabbath was the busiest day of the week for priests.)

What does it mean for Jesus to be the Lord of Sabbath for us today?

First, I don't think that this passage tells us much about whether Christians should still practise Sabbath like the Jews or not; after all, the Apostle Paul declared that the laws (and rituals) that separated the Jews from Gentiles had been done away by the cross of Christ (cf. Eph 2:11-18). Resting to remember and trust God may still be required of His people. However, the New Testament does not specify how and certainly does not impose the obligation on believers to "consider one day more sacred than another" (cf. Rom 14:5). Perhaps, this is so that we would be free to make Bible-informed, Spirit-guided choices for our unique circumstances in the spirit of honouring Christ, being fully convinced in our minds.

Secondly, Jesus said in Matthew 11:28 - "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." I think that this was and is an amazing invitation. What was He saying there? Did He mean back then that the Lord of the Sabbath would become our Sabbath in the already-but-not-yet? In participating in God's ordained rhythm of Creation (He rested on the seventh day), we must not assume that God rested from creating the world because He was exhausted - and I am not even sure if He was really setting us a pattern to follow because He foresaw that we would be exhausted after six days of labour. Rather, He rested because it was finished, for the time being (Gen 2:3). Something else about Genesis 2:3 caught my attention too: "God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation." He rested from His creational work, but He did not rest from bestowing mercy, grace and provision upon His creation - blessing it so that it might be fruitful and multiply.

We know that Jesus on the cross cried, "It is finished!" He finished the work that He had come to do so that we could rest in Him, in anticipation of the unimaginable eschaton. In this rest, His believers are bestowed mercy, grace and provisions, so that we may enjoy easier yokes and lighter burdens while we hope and seek His Kingdom. We rest from self-reliance and human enterprises devoid of God because we can; it is an act of remembering and trusting God. Entering this rest is not only a gift we receive by grace through faith; like that pertaining to Israel, entering this rest is expected of those who claim to Christ's disciples. It is to be a test of our faith and obedience, and it forms us as God's adopted sons (and daughters).

Finally, having Jesus as the Lord of Sabbath - and ultimately, our Sabbath - liberates us to join God in bringing His mercy, grace and provisions to the world we live and work in.

In doing so, we partner with God in His divine project of redeeming the world as we await the coming of His eternal seventh day.

Matthew 9:1-8 ~ A reflection

Jesus healed a paralytic.

Matthew 9:1-8 in the ESV goes as such:

"1 And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home.8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." 

Matthew did not mention the huge crowd in the home Jesus was preaching at... the Pharisees and teachers of the law present at the gathering (they came from every village of Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem, according to Luke)... the crammed space... or the four men carrying their friend on his bed and lowering him down through the roof in order that he could come before Jesus... all of which can be found in the parallel accounts (cf. Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26).

Matthew had neither Mark's flair in building up a climax to impress upon his audience the necessity of faith... nor Luke's apologetic habit of going into details. Matthew was certainly not into flowers and frills when it came to story-telling.

However, when read in context of Matthew 7:28-29 and chapter 8, the story's brevity gave no opportunity for readers to be distracted from Matthew's focus - i.e. Jesus' authority. His authority had been introduced in this line: "And when Jesus finished these sayings (pertaining to His sermon on the Mount), the crowds were astonished at His teaching, for He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." (7:28-29) The extent of His authority must have surpassed increasingly the imaginations of Matthew's readers throughout chapter 8 - and it was about to blow their minds (I guess) in the story of the paralytic, as it must have among Jesus' original witnesses.

You see, it was by Adam's sin that death - and every human suffering that it rendered natural to humankind from that point onward - entered the world (cf. Romans 5:12).

And like the first man, Adam, we sin. We suffer. Even while our sufferings are not always the result of particular sins, we cannot fully disconnect suffering from sin.

To think that Jesus has the authority on earth to forgive sins (Matt 9:6).

Could He then lift the life-zapping curse that has scourged Adam's race from the start of its unleashing?

The people recognised God as the Giver of this authority (9:8), even while they did not see what Jesus had to do with God. Not yet. And rightfully so. The title Jesus gave Himself, "Son of Man" (9:6) underscored His humanity rather than His divinity. It was a term used by King David himself when referring to the spiritual condition of man in his fallen state (Psalm 8:4) which debilitated man from fulfilling fully the commission he had been made for, i.e. to have dominion over all of God's creation. And so, when Jesus evidenced His authority to forgive sins by healing the man, they were afraid and glorified God, "who had given such authority to men" (Matt 9:8).

Indeed, who was Jesus to have been given such supreme authority? How could any one of the Adamic race qualify for the God-given authority to forgive sins, unless he knew no sin and had sinned not?

Was Jesus indirectly admitting that He had never sinned? And if so, was He attributing divinity to Himself?

It is no wonder that the scribes who considered themselves among the most righteous people on Earth thought that Jesus was blaspheming (9:3). They could have confessed, like Peter, that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16), but their pride hindered them from accepting the revelation - and thus, they thought evil of Him (cf. 9:4).

Couldn't they have asked Him for the forgiveness of their sins too? He was, after all, the Messiah that they had been waiting for.

The One who would lead fallen mankind to recover the privilege and commission that it had lost in Adam was right before their eyes. They had heard of Him, heard Him and seen what He could do.

But they still missed the signs.

And suddenly, we realise that the unprecedented miracles that Jesus had been doing prior were not merely acts of compassion. He had the authority to heal and cast out demons simply because... He had the authority over the root of all these things - sin, through which death had entered the world.

Ultimately, Jesus was evidencing His authority on earth to forgive sins (9:6) - and so, set man free from the law of sin and death (cf. Rom 8:2). In Him, a sick believer should be condemned no more as a sinner, if he ever was condemned. If God wills, he can be healed; otherwise, he should not fear that his illness is a sign of God's wrath upon him (or a sign that he lacks faith). Rather, his suffering would be a way to identify with Christ, to know Him (1 Pet 4:12-14) and to anticipate eagerly the culmination of His Kingdom - the end of the age.

"...And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" - Christ has promised (Matt 28:20).

In reflecting on this passage, I remember the miscarriage I suffered end of year 2012. I remember the guilt that weighed me down and paralysed me for some time. I kept asking myself back then, if I had done something to offend God and therefore, lose the gift that He had earlier bestowed upon us. In hindsight, I thank God for having shown me, throughout my journey of working through my grief, His gracious love in Christ that I could never have earned anyway. If Christ, in whom I have believed, died to set me free from the law of sin and death, why should I live as if He has not? :) Indeed, there is no more condemnation for those who have put their hope in Him. Because He lives, we can afford to rejoice in our pain - and to appreciate such opportunities to be satisfied by Him alone.

Muse: Pigs and Demons

Matthew 8:28-34 goes as follows:

"²⁸ And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. ²⁹ And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” ³⁰ Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. ³¹ And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” ³² And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. ³³ The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. ³⁴ And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region."

Parallel narratives in the Gospels of Mark and Luke only make mention of one of the two demon-possessed men - he who came to sit at Jesus' feet (cf. Luke 8:35) - and do not elaborate on the second one. Nevertheless, we know from Matthew's gospel that there were...

...two equally possessed men (possessed by a Legion, per Mark and Luke)
...two equally tormented men (the man that Mark and Luke described wore no clothes and lived among the tombs; was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles but would break the bonds and be driven by the demon(s) into the desert and on the mountains; and was always crying out and cutting himself with stones)
...two equally condemned men (they were possessed by unclean spirits, feared and therefore lived where nobody ventured)
....but then again, two men equally delivered by the Lord.

Oh, yes... and the pigs flew. Sort of. 

Bible interpreters debate on... 

...why Jesus let the demons have what they wanted (to be sent away into the herd of about two thousand pigs - cf. Mk 5:13 - if they were to be exorcised)
...whether the story was a political allegory or literal history
...the many inconsistencies (textual, scientific, cultural and theological) that complicate our reading of the story
...and etcetera.  

Very, very intriguing stuff.

Without making things too complicated, I'd like to take the story as literal history, and therefore...

...I agree with the view that the demons had wanted to hinder Jesus' ministry in the region, especially among the Gentiles (who had no problems with pig farming as the Jews did) by the massive destruction of their lifestock. They dreaded the Son of God and knew that He would unsettle them; they wanted to escape His wrath, but it is hard to believe that they had begged for His mercy without any conflict of interests. Additionally, they knew that He could not torment them "before the time" (Matt 8:29). Their begging appeared to pay off quite well; the tell-tale herdsmen got "all the city" to come out to meet Jesus, and when they saw Him, it appears that they begged Him to leave their region for the sake of their precious pigs - rather than rejoice over the deliverance of the demon-possessed men. Ironic stuff.

But... why would Jesus allow this? Interpreters focus on Jesus wanting to demonstrate His sovereign authority over the spiritual realm regardless of the degree and stage of malignancy among other more far-fetched reasons (for example, to educate the Sadducees regarding the existence of spirits, and to punish those who kept unclean animals that the pigs were to the Jews). I would go with the consensus that Jesus was putting on a show. Of course, it was primarily out of His compassion for the tormented men - but then again, He could also have delivered them without provoking such an uproar. He did not have to fulfill the request of the demons. I don't think Jesus was encouraging cruelty to animals either, least of all to pigs. The pigs came to be in the picture only because "...now, a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them." (Matt 8:30) They happened to be there. The region could have been peppered with pig farms for all we know, since it was a Gentile controlled area, being part of the Decapolis ("Ten Cities" originally inhabited by the Greeks after the conquest of Alexander the Great). 

A show for who... and why? 

Was Jesus really going to give His opportunity to minister to the people in that region a miss? 

Food for thought. What do you think?

I suppose that the incident would have spoken deeply into the souls of the Gentiles who were genuinely hungry for the things of God. The "Son of God", as those terrible demons called the Jewish Man, could deliver humans from demonic possession. He had authority over those that could enter the human body supernaturally... and take over the mind, physical capabilities and will of the person for evil purposes.

He had authority over those that could steal, kill and destroy. The most fearsome things ever. Wouldn't you want to know the "Son of God"? Wouldn't you be at least curious about He whom you found so inconvenient - and wanted so badly out of your region?

I would. My "God-shaped void" (per St. Augustine) would have pulsated in strange anticipation. No amount of denial would have hushed it. 

Jesus, after all, had come to give life - not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. His heart was for all nations (cf. Matt 28:18-20).

Perhaps, another of Jesus' purposes for His action was for it to be a visual parable to the people of Gadarene - one that embodied rhetorically the sinful condition of the human heart that cared more about worldly riches than the welfare of a fellow human being... or one's spiritual condition for that matter. 

To me, the story additionally expresses the essence of Imago Dei - what it means to be human made in God's image, with God-given dominion (and thus, God's priority) over all of His creation (cf. Psalms 8:4-8)... and worth in that God chooses to bestow His unconditional love in Christ upon man that even sin or the vilest, most jealous evil cannot undo. 

Muse: "...Do You not care....?"

I have been basking in Matthew 8 for a while.

From Jesus cleansing a bold leper, honouring the faith of a humble Roman centurion, doing yet more healing... to disclosing the costs of following Him, I have arrived at the part where He calmed the storm (Matt 8:23-27).

It is not my first time reading Matthew's account of the fascinating event. I can understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke all found it so necessary to include the event in their respective gospels. The jaws of Jesus' disciples must have dropped. Winds and waves kowtowing to a mere man, or so he seemed. Like a sort of finale, Jesus - the healer, the one who reconciles, the miracle worker and the exorcist - had yet one more surprise for His disciples - a display of His authority over all of God's created world.

God's groaning creation (cf. Rom 8:19-22) would continue to groan towards Christ's eschaton. But on that very day, it availed humankind a glimpse of the promise God had enfleshed in the man who slept peacefully upon a cushion on the tossing boat (cf. Mark 4:38). The Time Creator and Keeper Incarnate - in whom eternity graced time and sought to redeem it.

However, it is my first time pondering on this :

Jesus' disciples woke Him, terrified, while their boat was being swamped by waves - crying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing!" (8:25)

To this, the Lord replied, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. (8:26)

Why did Jesus rebuke His disciples (albeit gently) for their lack of faith when they had cried out to Him to save them; wasn't this a display of faith already?

The Markan narrative seems to give us a better understanding of their attitude in crying out to the Lord. "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" (Mk 4:38) The disciples certainly sound more frustrated, resentful and disappointed in Mark's account. More whiny. Jesus, You have let us down! We have believed in vain.

Apply the same whiny tone of voices to Matthew's narrative, and Matt 8:25 would sound like the disciples were fed up and just as dissatisfied. Short of saying, "O come on... You've worked so many miracles for the heathen - but you aren't going to lift a finger to save us, your faithful followers?"

While Matthew emphasised to his predominantly-Jewish readers the right and only way to enter a saving relationship with God (a.k.a. through faith in Jesus Christ, as opposed to merely doing the Law), Mark targeted a more Roman/Gentile audience who were under heavy persecution from Emperor Nero... and therefore, might have purposely highlighted the disciples' lack of faith in Jesus at a time of turmoil in order to strengthen believers in their faith-zapping sufferings. 

It was as if Mark had wanted to drive home to his readers these exhortations: Jesus cares. He cares that you are perishing - and He knows your pain. Do not give up on Him. You have not believed in vain. Do not doubt that He is with you - even when He seems so faraway, so removed, so unconcerned. Do not doubt that He cares for you. Do not lose hope. He is able to make you an over-comer, even when things seem so bleak and impossible. The storm may be all around you - it threatens to crush and destroy. But fix your eyes on Him. Cry out to Him, yes, but do so, being convicted that His authority and purposes prevail; and His promise stands firm.

Christ is greater than Emperor Nero - or any power and principality of the world for that matter. You know whom you have believed. Come what may, your lives are in Him. Your salvation is secure. Death, even while tragic and terrifying for the moment, can only have a happy ending - one that is glorious, eternal and unmatched in its beauty.

The wind and waves stood still, because the King of kings had spoken.


And today, He still speaks.

Muse: Asking, Seeking, Knocking

The Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7.

It defines God's Kingdom at hand - its blessings, and yet, the implications for its people. Priorities, prohibitions, cautions and instructions.

I have been dwelling on Matthew 5-7 lately. It shocked me to realise that Matt 7:7-11 is too, part of the great Sermon. You know... "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you...." And so on.

Guess I've often read Matt 7:7-11 out of context. Oops.

And by doing so, I make God a sort of Genie. Grant me my three wishes. My wish is Your command.

Abomination of abominations.

There, I've confessed.

Anyway, here are two thoughts about Matt 7:7-11:

First, according to the general flow and theme of Matthew 5-7, I think what we are to ask for, seek and knock to be opened unto us is no other than Christ's Kingdom - rather than focusing on our needs and wants. We are to desire the Kingdom and God's righteousness... and God delights to give it to us as a lavish gift, along with all that He knows we need, even those we are unaware of (cf. Matt 6:25-34).

Of course it is not wrong to ask God to provide us our daily needs. It is not wrong to lay our cares and wants at His feet. However, Matt 7:7-11 is not the passage that we should misuse to back us up in these pursuits. Rather, it underscores particularly Christ's Kingdom.

Secondly, desiring God's Kingdom... asking for it, seeking it and knocking that it might be opened unto us does not ignore the fact that a big part of it will also mean death for us in the now-but-not-yet. Until the Kingdom consummates upon the second coming of the King Himself, Jesus Christ, death and its related sorrows/sufferings will continue to test us on both individual and Body-wide levels.

If you have asked for God's Kingdom come and His will be done on Earth as it is on Heaven, you should know what this really means.

You know what this means, don't you?

I personally think that it is a terrifying prayer to pray. But is there anything else that would bring us as much life as desiring and expecting God's YES to such a prayer... as well as surrendering to all that it encompasses?

It is such comfort that Jesus Christ has left the Holy Spirit with us - He who meets us where we are and empowers us to take one day at a time. We are not alone.

And for those of you, grains of wheat who have fallen into the earth and died with that first Grain (John 12:24-25), know for sure that your tears are not in vain.

You have at least inspired some of the rest of us to let go and take that leap of faith.

Muse: Kingdom blessings ~ Matt 4:23-5:12

Acknowledging the hope of His gospel and His unmatched authority over diseases and afflictions, great crowds followed Jesus - "...from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan." (4:25)

Seeing the crowds, Jesus went up on the mountain (5:1) and took the opportunity to address His disciples.

The following parts of Matthew 5 should thus be read in the context of the above. Otherwise, the beatitudes would read as a checklist of requirements that one would have to fulfill in order to be blessed.

And God would sound like a sadist.

A mean and spiteful one. Hard and cold-hearted.

Are you poor in spirit? Yes? Good. You are blessed.
Are you mourning? Yes? Good. You are blessed.
And so on...

The truth is this: God blesses us - not only when we are poor in spirit, mournful, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness, in need of grace to forgive, purified, facing conflict and persecuted. Afflicted, needy and oppressed. I used to read the beatitudes this way. It was depressing.

In other words, we don't have to whip ourselves in order to be blessed. Good times, good relationships, health, provisions and rest are good things that we can and should enjoy when we can - expressions of God's mercy and grace.

But it was as if Jesus was also saying to His disciples on that mountain: "Look at those who are coming to Me - the afflicted, the oppressed, the needy... They come, and therefore, they shall be blessed."

Blessed. The Greek word (Makarios) was used in Greek literature to describe (1) gods; (2) those who had died and had therefore reached the world of the gods; and (3) fortunate persons who were considered to live up to the ideals of Greek philosophy, which worshiped an affluent, happy culture, and were therefore in enviable positions. The Kingdom that was at hand - the heavenly one which was now and yet to come on Earth - was to turn the world and its ways upside-down. The afflicted, oppressed and needy could now be the recipients of divine favour and joy in their coming to Jesus Christ - bread of life, the Word made flesh.

Circumstances. It is the difficult ones which tend to make us feel forsaken by God. But it is in these difficult situations that God intends us to rejoice even more because they are opportunities for Him to yet bless us... and opportunities for us to taste even more keenly His mercy and grace toward us, whether or not our difficulties lessen (or even intensify).

Yes, we will taste. God's grace is not meant to be merely some abstract thing that we need to brain-wash ourselves into imagining present. In the most difficult times of my life, I have experienced it in its various manifestations. Encouraging words, presents, friendship, the commitment of a friend to pray with me throughout the season or buy me a comforting good meal, healing in unexpected places, reconciliation, etc. 

Again, Jesus and not the pain relief is the reason we are blessed. This is what God's Kingdom is about. 

Jesus, the Giver and centre of Life eternal.

Jesus, the source of all hope.

Jesus, the One who walks with us, even in our loneliest moments.

Only when we understand what it means to be Kingdom people can we be salt of the earth and light of the world (Matt 5:13-16).

Because we are meant to be salt and light... not only when the times are good.