Wednesday 17 January 2018

CANAAN REST THE REHEARSALS; HEAVEN REST THE REAL DEAL



CANAAN REST THE REHEARSALS; HEAVEN REST THE REAL DEAL
Rewriting Hebrews 4:1-11 to a Contemporary Audience 
From the very beginning, God has always have it in mind to give His children rest from their labours and struggles against Sin and control of Satan which came as a result of the fall of man. However, while awaiting the fulness of time, God had to use the nation of Israel to illustrate how the ultimate rest will be like. Israel's experience of slavery in Egypt, God's promise of a place of rest for them and their eventual deliverance were all part of an illustration of the ultimate salvational rest. 
The promise of a place of rest for Israelites was the good news that illustrated the promise of heavenly rest that God has gave His children. Since this promise of rest was part of a covenant, it's fulfilment was based on the condition of 'belief and obedience'. Unfortunately, out of several hundreds of thousands of people who were delivered from Egypt, only two people (Joshua and Caleb) fulfilled the condition of belief and obedience. That means, just those two entered into the physical place of rest God promised them. 
Remember, God was just using His dealings with Israelites as an illustration of His ultimate Salvation. Now the danger is that, people are looking at that promise only as the physical land of Canaan and conclude that God had already fulfilled that promise when Joshua took the Israelites into Canaan which today is the land occupied by Israel and Palestine. 
Now, this is the real truth: the promise of a place and experience of rest that God gave His people was a spiritual and heavenly promised-land and since what Joshua gave the Israelites was physical, it therefore means that, the promise of real spiritual and heavenly rest still stands today and it can only be gotten through Jesus Christ. However, note this strong warning: just as those Israelites who heard the first good news of the promise could not encounter it because of their unbelief which manifested in their disobedience, there is still the danger that many of God's people today would miss the encounter of the promise of spiritual and heavenly rest because of unbelief. (Please note: when I say 'unbelief', I do not mean that the Israelites did not agree with the fact that God sent Moses; or that Christians today do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God; rather, 'unbelief' in this context means: the character of those Israelites and Christians today do not reflect what they confessed as their belief. This is what would make Christians miss the spiritual and heavenly promise). 
There is the possibility that some people today may have the repentance and born again experience and miss the heavenly rest, which is the ultimate salvation, because the profession of their belief do not show in the character of love for God, love for man and obedience to God.

 For this reason, let us strive to qualify for the real spiritual and heavenly rest of God.  Let us strive by putting our flesh under spiritual discipline; by carefully avoiding disobedience so that we would not also miss the promise of rest like those disobedient Israelites did. The phrase 'strive to enter' indicates that: although God has already provided the heavenly rest by grace; it does not mean that we can live carelessly and expect to walk into the heavenly rest - building a vibrant relationship with God requires hard work. Some people on the other hand can also make the unbalanced mistake of seeing this promise as only in the future, i.e when we get to heaven. However, the Holy Spirit, several hundred years after Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan, spoke through David concerning another day of rest, calling it "Today". 

In Psalm 98:7,8 David referred to the incident where the ancient Israelites rebelled against God when they asked for water and caused Moses to miss the Canaan rest. David ended by saying, 'Today, if you hear God's voice, do not harden your hearts as your fathers did'. That means, although the ancient Israelites hardened their hearts and missed the promised rest, God did not cancel the rest, He only prevented those set of people from entering; there is still another opportunity today. You can still experience rest from struggles of Sin and control of Satan today, not until you get to heaven. 
Someone can experience a life of victory over Sin and Satan's manipulations like worries, fears and doubts while here on earth; it is possible to come to that point in one's life that he says, "although I cannot avoid the storms of life, yet, I can avoid Satan using any of those storms to cause me to worry, doubt, fear or sin against God". When one gets to that point, he can say that he has ceased from struggling against Sin and Satan. In fact, even Satan himself takes a break from trying to tempt him, at least for a season. So, while we await the eternal rest in heaven, we can still experience a bit of that heavenly rest while on earth. This promise of heavenly rest is still open for and to any child of God who will grab it.

Friday 23 May 2014

DAVID KILLED GOLIATH, ELHANAN KILLED A GOLIATH


DAVID KILLED GOLIATH, 

ELHANAN KILLED A GOLIATH


(This is a copy of a rejoinder to an article published in The Vanguard November 10, 2013 and November 17, 2013 However, the rejoinder was not published; that, even with two reminders. No reason was given for the refusal and nor was communicated with.  I have decided to publish it here.)

 Image; theponderingcyclist.com 


Before now, I used to be baffled and sometimes irritated when people put in so much energy to prove the ‘fallibility’ of the Bible by digging up so-called ‘contradictions’. These days I only get amused – since I noticed it is only the seemingly miraculous and heroic acts that get ‘contradicted’. No one has ever tried to dig up contradictions in the story of David’s adultery, treachery, betrayal and murder; no one has seen any ‘contradiction’ in Peter’s denial of his lord. That is why I get amused when miraculous acts of God through these same characters get contradicted often. 

For this very reason the Bible should never be seen as a fabrication – the writers of the story of David’s adultery were very close to David and family, yet they put down both the good, the bad and the ugly ‘stuff’ about their hero. That can only by divine inspiration.

I stumbled on Femi’s Aribisa’s article published by The Vanguard titled: David Did Not Kill Goliath (Part 1 published on November 10, 2013 and part 2 published on November 17, 2013) and frankly speaking, it made an interesting reading – reminding me of the Secondary School debate techniques of pulling down as much of your opponents’ points as possible, especially when you know you do not have enough points to back your argument or when you realised you were not so conversant with the topic you were told to handle. 

Before I throw light on those ‘contradictions’ and help the readers understand that the so-called contradictions exist only on the minds of the biased, I would like to suggest reasons many people see contradictions in the Bible where none exist. 

Like Femi, many people try to force the Bible to say what it did not say – I will point out where Femi’s article was guilty of this. Sometimes, this is as a result of taking just the preacher’s account without checking the Bible; and allowing the preacher’s account to ‘colour’ the mind while reading the Biblical account. 

Another reason people have the contradiction-problem might be their not-so-good understanding of classical Hebrew writing style. In classical Hebrew, writers (even oral narrators) sometimes bring in a summary or conclusion of the story before the beginning or in the middle of the story. The immediate audience did not have problem understanding the authors. Centuries later and continents apart, readers in different cultures and styles will certainly encounter a little problem understanding the classical Hebrew writers. A good example of this is the story of creation: at a point in Genesis chapter one, the writer presents the creation of man and woman as happening on the same day. But the next chapter explains that the woman was created a long while after the man was created. Chapter one’s narration was a conclusion or summary brought in out-of-sequence in the middle of the story. I will also point out where Femi’s article showed a lack of this vital knowledge.

I am going to respond to only those contradictions Femi referred to as (quoting him)major ones in the bible that effectively lead to the conclusion that the whole story of David killing Goliath is fabricated’. There were other ‘contradictions’ Femi said were minor. I will not respond to those, I leave them for the readers’ judgement. 

I never looked up Femi Aribisala, so I do not know his religious or philosophical inclinations. I did not even read other people’s on-line comments. I avoided all that so that I could be as objective as possible without the temptation of attacking personalities. Femi had used words like ‘bible-fanatics’ and ‘gullibility’ in referring to people who choose to believe the Biblical story of David and Goliath, I will try to avoid such blind generalisation. 

The Choice of David


Femi's Assumption: Femi said ‘It therefore beggars belief that Saul would then agree to put the fate of the whole nation of Israel on the shoulders of inexperienced young David’.

Fact: Goliath had been daily-challenging (psychologically harassing) the Israeli Army for forty days. The Bible says Saul and the Israeli Army were ‘dismayed and terrified’ (1 Samuel 17: 11 NIV; I realized Femi had some good words for the New International Version of the Bible). 

Remember: King Saul at this time was an emotional and mental wreck; for forty days no one – whether young or old, experienced or inexperienced could come out to face Goliath; everyone including ‘experienced officers’, for forty days, would run inside their tents anytime Goliath came out; morale in the camp was at its lowest ebb. At the time David came to the camp, no ‘experienced adult soldier’ was willing to step up to take Goliath’s challenge. David’s appearance was more than welcome. 

Femi also rushed into two quick conclusions; that David’s tale of killing a lion with bare hands would not cut and that there was no proof. Whether Saul believed David or not was not evident; what was evident was that Saul was willing (by divine influence) to allow David confront Israel’s embarrassing enemy. 

My aim here is not to highlight the role of God’s discretion and power in using David to deliver Israel – which is what the story is all about, ultimately – but to point out that it is only a biased mind that searches out non-existent contradictions ‘not just to demonstrate the fallibility of the bible’ (Femi’s words) but to show that David and Goliath story is a fabrication’.

The article also wrongly concluded that Saul’s permission to David would provoke a revolt among the soldiers. I asked myself, ‘was it this same army who had been terrified for forty that would revolt because someone, howbeit a teenager, had volunteered’? Remember the old English saying: drowning man grabs at straw? Anyone who questioned Saul’s choice should be ready to do the job…anyone? The above also explains the reason Saul allowed David to go without armour. If David would go…it would be on his own terms.

There was a side comment (kind of) that the article made about David’s complaints about Saul’s armour being too heavy for him (David). Femi hoped to use this point prove the fabrication of the whole story since David was earlier employed as Saul’s armour bearer.

Now this is one of the places Femi tried to force the Bible to say what it did not say. David never complained about Saul’s armour being too heavy for him. He actually said ‘he was not used to them’ (1Samuel 17: 39 NIV). Even an ‘experienced soldier would find another man’s armour ‘as not used to them’.  Moreover, the job of an armour bearer did not include wearing them or ‘practicing battle’ with them.   

Did David Kill With a Catapult or a Sword?

 
Image courtsey: Oliarturo.deviantart.com
I was so amused that the non-existent contradiction of death by a catapult or by a sword was the so-called proof that ‘effectively leads to the conclusion that the whole story of David killing Goliath is fabricated’.

Staying with the NIV, the Bible NEVER said that the stone killed the giant. The word ‘struck’ or ‘smote’ (as KJV used it) should not be confused with the word ‘kill’ (as the article emphasized) or ‘slay’. At this point Femi was guilty of both trying to force the bible to say what it did not say and lack of knowledge of the classical Hebrew prose style. 

If you read 1 Samuel 17: 39-53, you will realize that verse 50 is an out-of-sequence narration: bringing in the summary/conclusion in the middle of the story, then continuing with the story. Let’s try reading verse 49, jump verse 50 and continue with verse 51 and you will understand.

‘reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he (David) slung it and STRUCK the philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his fore head, and he fell facedown on the ground.
David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the philistine SWORD and drew it from the scabbard. After he KILLED him, he cut off his head’.

Truth is: the stone from the catapult struck the giant’s forehead; the giant fell to the ground (the New Living Translation said ‘and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground’ – certainly unconscious); David ran up to the giant; drew out the giant’s sword and killed him with it; finally, David cut of the head of the giant.
Do the contradictions still exist? Judge for yourself. 

Pure Fiction?


54 (David took the Philistine’s head to Jerusalem, but he stored the man’s armour in his own tent.)(1Samuel 17: 54; New Living Translation)
I agree with Femi that David could not have taken the giant’s head immediately to Jerusalem.
But again, the Hebrew writer brought a summary in the middle of a story. This clearly shows that the author – who was conversant with the story of David killing Goliath – must have written the story when David was already King in Jerusalem. My take (not directly written in the scriptures) on this is that David only took the head with him to Jerusalem when he became king.

Was David Made a General Over Other Senior Officers?

 
Quoting Femi:David was then made a General in the Israeli army and we are told this promotion of a young upstart over older more-experienced soldiers pleased everyone including Saul’s officials. (1 Samuel 18:5). This is nothing short of political propaganda’.
I wish I knew the definition of political propaganda; so I will not comment on that. However, the article clearly misrepresented the referred scripture – another case of forcing the Bible to say what it did not.
Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well (1Samuel 18: 5).
Someone who is open-minded when reading the Bible will notice that the whole of chapter 18 happened quite some time after the killing of Goliath. David’s promotion was never for killing Goliath; it was for David’s success at ‘whatever mission Saul sent him’.

Reading the whole chapter 8, you will discover that there were other responsibilities Saul gave to David that earned him his ‘high rank’ (not a General). By this time David had become experienced and certainly had juniors and had earned the respect of both the military community and the civil populace. David had been leading smaller units on raids; his success at this earned him a command of a unit of a thousand troops. This unit may not have necessarily been made of his seniors – haba). The Bible never said David was made a General over senior officers. Abner still remained the Captain of Saul’s Army.

Now, Couldn’t David Have visited Gath (about thirteen after Goliath)?


Femi then presented what he referred to as the clincher that proved that the whole story of David killing Goliath is a fabrication. Let me quote his clincher:
Of all the cities that David could choose for safety, he chose Gath, the very hometown of Goliath: “So David dwelt with Achish at GATH, he and his men, each man with his household.” (1 Samuel 27:3). This is conclusive proof that David did not kill Goliath. If he did, the last place he would seek refuge would be in Goliath’s hometown.
So because David, who had been running for his life for about thirteen years, went to Achish – a Philistine king who was more interested in having David as his subject than killing him (1Samuel 27:12) – we should conclude the whole story as a fabrication?

 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.”(1Samuel 27:12 NIV).

What the article did not tell its readers was that at this point David had been running from Saul, experiencing near-death situations for well-over a decade. Gath was the only place Saul would not go to look for David. And David knew that he was more useful to the present king of Gath – King Achish – alive than dead.

Imagine this: Odimegwu Ojukwu comes back to Nigeria from exile, 13 years after the civil war –his return being made possible by a president of Northern origin, arch-enemies of Ojukwu and his people (13 years before his return). If Ojukwu decides to be a guest of one of the Northern governors and probably stay there for a year and four months (which was actually the duration David stayed as Achish’s guest in Ziklag, not Gath, although used the word ‘several years’), would that make the story of the civil war a fabrication? 

Most importantly, David was not living in Gath but in Ziklag – which happened to be a virgin land near Gath that David and his people happened to be the first landlords. David had attempted to stay at Gath disguised as a mad man some years before then, but his identity was discovered. This time around, he requested Achish (his personal friend) to give him a land outside the royal city. So, diplomatically, Ziklag was not a Philistinian territory – the Bible says, Ziklag belonged to the Kings of Israel from that time onward. You need the reference? Check out 1 Samuel 27.



Achish had his personal political ambitions and reasons for keeping David; David had safety as his paramount reason for seeking asylum in a philistine territory. Do you think anyone would harass David – King Achish’s guest?


David’s stay in a Philistinian territory as a guest of the king is not a proof that the story was fabricated.
The practice back then was that there was no grudge against anyone for any killing done in battle. This is why David did not forgive Joab for the death of Abner whom Joab killed at peace time to avenge the death of Asahel his brother in battle. Abner had killed Asahel in battle; Joab killed Abner in peacetime.

The Bible Truth

Image courtsey: us-en.superbook.cbn.com
Femi’s article purposely avoided a very important passage of the scripture. There is another story in the Bible that happened before David became king that corroborate the story of David killing Goliath in 1samuel 17.
The story is in 1Samuel 21. In one of David’s flights from Saul, he went to Ahimelek the priest of God at Nob. One of the things the priest gave him was the sword of Goliath.
The priest replied, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want it, take it; there is no sword here but that one.”(1Samuel 21: 9 NIV).
What Femi’s article used as a foundation to his conclusion was that Elhanan had killed a Goliath of Gath. Was it impossible for another giant of the same name (or probably same family) to have existed in the same town? That was not impossibility.
Truth is: David killed Goliath long before he became king (Priest Ahimelek of Nob confirmed it); Elhanan killed another giant of the same family (probably with the same name) with Goliath long after David became king.

Femi suggested that those who believe the story of David vs. Goliathare entitled to your gullibility’.
Readers, please draw your conclusions: who is entitled to whose gullibility.



Wednesday 25 April 2012

Corruption In Nigeria

Corruption in Nigeria is not just endemic. Its so scary.
Imagine being told that the Customs Officer who arrested Charles Taylor, when he (Charles Taylor) broke his House Arrests bounds, was actually fired few weeks after the incident.
In other climes, that officer would be a national Hero.
Mr. Umoh Sunday Etim had rejected a $450,000 bribe offer from Charles Taylor and for that, the former warlord assured him that he would be fired..
"Do not jeopardize your job" Charles Taylor had warned Mr. Etim.
Today Mr. Etim is without a job.

Wednesday 30 March 2011

ARE YOU IN LOVE?

Love: Self-Examination   
Imagine you were the only surgeon in town; and the Police had just rushed a man in to your hospital in a very critical condition. You also learnt this man was shot because he tried escaping after killing your pregnant wife and raping your twelve year old daughter.

The Police want him alive to face prosecution, and you know the courts and some smart lawyers may get him off the hook. You know you can still save him and it is only you who knows that a little dragging of feet before wheeling him into the theatre; a few seconds of unnecessary fumbling with needles and checking out some equipment will actually kill him without any investigative panel ever finding that out. Will you go about your duty the way God would do it?

Anyone who tells you ‘ah this is what I will do’, most likely, had never been faced with a semblance of that situation. But the question, ‘what would God want me to do?’ will go a long way in revealing the level of our soul maturity.
Certainly, if God wanted this imaginary suspect dead, he probably would not need the help of the surgeon to do that. Very likely, the reason the young man was still alive may be that God still want to save him. Though God can still save his life and soul with or without the help of the doctor (after all He resurrected Lazarus and Jesus Christ from the dead, and there have cases of contemporary coming back to life after doctor’s dead certification).

The most likely reason may be that God wants this doctor to have opportunity of being a vessel of pure and divine love.
If we find ourselves in the same situation as this doctor – a situation which calls for our having to choose between an instinctive (though popular) reaction and a conscious restrain from our basic instincts – we should see it as an opportunity to set ourselves free from the most basic and the most dangerous of chains, SELF.

Check out Jesus’ teaching on love: Matthew 5: 43-48.

•    Love your enemies
•    Bless and do good to enemies
•    This is the way of showing that you are God’s Child
•    This is Perfection

The most frequently asked questions, on the above passage centres on real cases of enmity and real risk of letting a confirmed and powerful enemy go free, when one has the opportunity of incapacitating him for life. These cases of enmity are especially sensitive, knowing that there is still the risk of enemy striking anytime.
Whenever I have the opportunity of responding to those questions, I try as much as possible to avoid much argument, I simply point to verse 48; you see these parameters are for those who are ready to “be perfect even as our heavenly father is perfect”. This is both an indicator of perfection in love and a process of perfecting our love.

Did you expect the process to be easy?

One of the books that have done much harm to humanity is a book I would not want to popularise by mentioning its name and author. The book which claims to teach on control, power, influence and dominance advocates a total elimination of every potential enemy. It portrays every opponent, challenger and competition as enemy to be eliminated.
Truth is, God, through the Holy Spirit, has shed abroad His love seeds in our hearts. Many of us are reluctant to even believe we are capable of such a special kind of love. We are reluctant to allow God grow these love seeds to the point of touching people, even, our perceived enemies.
Mark you, when you refuse to love the way God wants, those love seeds eventually die and we discover that hate replaces love, jealousy and envy replaces appreciation, help and cooperation

Good’ Samaritan

Perhaps the best illustration of active neighbourly love is the ‘true story’ of the Samaritan who actively did acts of love to his Jewish neighbour.
Imagine acts of kindness between George W. Bush with his Republicans on one hand and Muamar Ghaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden on the other hand and you will the story of the Good Samaritan.
Going by the relationship between the Jews and Samaritans, the least and the last person expected to help this Jew was this Samaritan. Inversely, the last person expected to ask for help from this Samaritan was this Jew. Did you notice another case of extreme incomprehension of love? The Samaritan had what I call ‘the love seed’ in him – Jesus calls it ‘compassion’ (v.33), that was why he was able to yield himself to be used by God as a vessel to transmit divine love.
Regrettably, the Priest and the Levite (both religious leaders) were not capable of carrying such a responsibility because they did not have the love seed (compassion) in them.

I am so certain, if the man was a prominent financial donor in the central Temple or Synagogue, they would help. But then, people would be misled to see that as love. Whereas in real sense that would be greed.

 So, can you say "I am really in Love with everyone around me"?

Culled from my yet to be published book "Becominig Christ"

Monday 7 March 2011

NIGERIANS POLITICIANS: The Way We see Them

Human beings, they say, are political animals. Joggle those words a bit like ' To be a good Politician, you must be a good animal' and you won't be too far from the truth in Nigeria.

Or how can you explain the case of a well known South-West leader of the ruling party coming out of prison after being convicted of corruption and the next thing you see is a Thanksgiving service in his honour (read that, dishonour ) and in attendance was the former president who set up the Anti-Graft agency that convicted the politician. Few days later, our ex-convict politician was 'seated at the right-hand' of the president in a campaign to capture Lagos - which is the city with the has the highest voters, highest income and biggest commercial city in Nigeria.

Do they think we are fools?