Call to Recognize Our Position (Col 1:1)




a) We are called by the will of God. Each of us who served in the ministry is called by God. I believe you serve in Children’s Ministries because you felt the call of God to serve here. This should impact the way we serve and minister to the children. We use the talents and gifts God has given us to invest in the lives of these children. We do everything to the best of our ability. We strive for excellence in the ministry. We are serving God, not anyone else, who has called us and placed us here in the ministry fulfilling different roles that God has ordained for us.



b) We are called to belong to Jesus Christ. We have no other lord or master; we belong only to Jesus Christ. Whatever we do, we seek to glorify our Master Jesus. Our life’s goal should be to please him and in our service we want to give Him the best. We want to do what is best for the Body of Christ (the Church).



2. Call to Disciple-Making (Col 1:1)



a) Paul’s aim is discipleship. He is not Zorro the Lone Ranger. He always serves together with others and focuses on developing other people around him. He seeks to help others fulfill his/her role in God’s kingdom. Timothy is one of Paul’s disciples; in fact, the relationship they shared is like a ‘father-son’ relationship. I pray as we minister to the children we would also develop close, lasting relationship with them.



b) God has placed in our care the children. These are our disciples. Our tasks are to disciple and develop them to become the person God wants them to be. Our task is not babysitting or provides a drop-in for parents on weekend. Our task is nobler than that. We are engage in disciple-making every weekend. Our time every week with the children is precious because we are making disciples for Christ.



So dear people, what we do each week is awesome work. Our obedience to God’s will and the Master Jesus helps to prepare the Church for the years to come. Each week as we teach the children, we are building disciples for Christ Jesus and ministers for God. We are the backbone of the Church. I pray that as we continue to serve in the Ministry, we will come to realize the importance of our task more. We will see and appreciate the trust God has in us to groom His leaders for the Church.

Call to Purposeful and Faithful Living (Col 1:2)


a) In the New Testament all believers are called ‘saints’. The words ‘saint’ and ‘holy’ come from the same root word in the original language, meaning a ‘saint’ is ‘a holy one’. We are ‘holy’ because we are separated out of the world to serve God for a specific purpose. We serve a specific purpose in God’s kingdom. Every one of us has a special function in the kingdom of God. In Children’s Ministries, our purpose is to rise up leaders for the kingdom. Each week as we come to the ministry, whether to teach or lead worship, we have a purpose and our purpose is to train and rise up new leaders for the kingdom.

b) Those who are entrusted with God’s purpose must be faithful. God requires each of us to be faithful in our stations in the kingdom. When we serve in the ministry, faithful living means we treat every task with our best effort. It may also means coming early to prepare for the service or practicing and rehearsing for worship. Faithful living is more than fulfilling a task; it requires us to carry out the task to the best of our effort and with excellence.

2. Call to be a Blessing (Col 1:2)

a) Give you a quiz: if you have a choice would you like to be a caterpillar or a housefly? What is your choice? Both caterpillar and housefly are considered pests. However, I pray that you would choose to be a caterpillar. Why? Because a caterpillar would become a beautiful butterfly after it went through the tedious process of metamorphosis. When it turns into a butterfly it becomes a blessing because wherever it goes it helps to perpetuate life. But a housefly only brings death wherever it goes.


b) As Christians we are called to bring God’s grace and peace to those around us. In our ministry, it may be to help the children to experience the goodness of God and to experience His salvation grace. The children that pass through our hands must hear the gospel before they leave our care. Helping the children to experience the peace/shalom of God is to help them grow up wholesomely and be in a right relationship with God. We are called to bring life to our children – the life of God.



We are called to live purposefully and faithfully as God has entrusted to us the sacred mission of rising leaders for his kingdom to fulfill his purposes on earth. In our ministry, it is important that each week we demonstrate these characters so that our children will also learn to live purposefully and faithfully. We are also called to be a blessing in our children’s life. We will help our children to grow closer to God with each passing week and be the agent through whom they can experience the grace and peace of God. Wherever we go, we should leave behind the fragrance of life and not the pungent smell of death.

得胜的基督羔羊：揭开封印，领受敬拜

经文：《启》5.1-14


以七印密封的书卷：撬不开的困境 (5.1-5)

气氛很僵，一切呈现胶着状态。在天上也会遇到这样的困境？仿佛，天上也不妙，也出了紧张的状况。是的。这个困境说明了上帝在天上的掌权和他对所造之万物的执行力、二者之间有不协调的张力；天，正面临了严苛的考验，执行不力的危机。书卷被紧密地封锁住，没有任何一方可以撬得开。这，不也反映在地上的人的焦虑吗？即没有答案的焦虑；对所遭受的苦难、冤屈、不平、患难，　似乎都没有希望解开。从另个角度思考，在法理上，任何封住的卷子，一旦打开后，其内容就是有效用的，而不再是理论而已。这就仿佛圣旨，言一经读出，就有执行的作用。然而，目前的情况是：似乎一切都没有了答案，

随上述无解而来的哭泣，肯定充满沮丧和无助，充斥着无力感和无奈。然而，作者（或者读者）被带到这种境界，并不是要他们陷溺在沮丧和无助，而是准备他们经验如何经过的释放。为了人能够超越，天必须为人来一次“如何经过”的示范：天先为地上的人切身进入类似困境。

“谁配开这书卷？”：弥赛亚亮相（5.4）

但是，到底“谁配开这书卷？” (参考：《王上》22/20-21; 《赛》6.8)。“犹大支派的狮子，　他已经得胜了”。 就是他，他配！“犹大支派的狮子”是充满政治意味的称呼。不仅凸显某个地理位置。 类似用法，在《启示录》很是普遍。例如：巴比伦 – 就是用换喻 (metonymy) 的方式，以远喻近；总之，这是帝国的符号。犹大 (Judeae) 是个地理位置，使人想起另一个古代的王国，曾经是遭遇挫败的国度。但它也是一个在第一世纪时在罗马西边的、极为重要的地理位置。从那个地方来的人叫犹大人(Judaeans)。这是遇到外人外族时自称用的（若是对着自己人，就说行话：“以色列”）。对这位配打开封印的，他还有另外的称呼：“大卫的根”。再一次，有关国度的思维，回响在侧。毫无疑问，这是标显政治弥赛亚的形象的用语，他就是领导以色列战胜政治敌人、替犹太人建立公义/公平的救赎主（参考：《所罗门诗篇》17.1-42; 《以斯拉四书》12.32; 4Q285残篇，5.4; 4Q252,5.3-4; 4Q161, 3.18）。

安慰：“不要哭泣”（5.5）

焦急的背后有安慰。“不要哭泣”（5.5）。这是对着约翰说的，更是对着那些准备聆听的教会、领受信息的人说的 (聆听，经文) 。

基督是受命完成上帝计划的羔羊 (5.6-7)

站着的羔羊，它好像是被杀过的：这是象征的语言，指基督被挂死在木头上 – 这不是一般的事件，而是发生在公共的事件。但对于羔羊的现身之处，在空间上极为吊诡：被杀的羔羊，在天上。这等于说，基督的死不再是局限于历史、曾经发生的历史事件，而是深具宇宙意义的。基督和上帝同空间：他在天。对于在地上的读者而言，这个信息的意义真的太重要了，因为：这等于说这就是跟随基督的人从今以后看待事情的起点、观点。这个观点，不再是从历史说起，而是从上述具备宇宙意义的场景说起。难道， 这就是基督徒升华自己在地上遭遇苦难时的出路？因为地上不得意，所以只好从天上得到安慰？

基督羔羊接受书卷、打开书卷象征他是受命的，将上帝的救赎付诸实现。但这到底是不是指基督在历史的某个特定阶段发生的事情呢？这种可能性不大。 根据作者对羔羊的陈述，羔羊是“从创立世界以前”的 (13.8)。

崇敬基督，敬拜基督 (5.8-14)

请留意不同段落之间的差别：

4.11：都是单数代名词“你”，而不用“你们”， 但（复活）主和上帝，还是有办法区隔开来。但无论如何区隔， 基督的尊荣、地位几乎和上帝的叠合。 "你是配的，主和我们的上帝，荣耀，尊荣和权能都归给你， 因你创造一切， 它们是藉着你的旨意而被造的。英文圣经NRSV将此处翻译成为： "You are worthy, our Lord and God…” 仿佛主就是上帝。

5.9

此处是新约所见最明显的、关于敬拜基督的描绘。

他们唱新歌：“你是配展开书卷和揭开封印的，因为你曾被杀， 且你为上帝买赎了圣民，就是各个支派、语言和子民和国度。” 公开颂扬基督，运用第二人称“你”。

5.12-13

接受敬拜的两造 12. 竭尽所能的唱道：“被杀的羔羊是配的，你配”领受权能、丰富、智慧、权能、尊荣和荣耀和颂赞。" 13. 之后，我听见天上的、地上的]地底下的、在海里的， 并在它们其中的高唱道：“坐在宝座上的啊， 和羔羊，但愿永远的颂赞、荣耀、权能都归于他。” （运用第三人称）

约翰是一神论者吗？

基督被赋予那么崇高的地位，有威胁到早期信徒敬拜一神（monolatry）的信仰吗？看来还不至于如此。原因：

1. 当上帝和基督一并提及的时候，作者谨慎的以单数动词和代名词来表述（参考：14.1; 20.6; 21.22; 22.3; 但注意：6.17）

2. 作者有能力将二者隔开， 并作出分别的描绘：透过重复的前置词（以免构成概念上的合一，即conceptual unity）以及使用重复紧随前置词的格 (例如：6.16; 7.9-10; 11.15; 12.10; 14.4; 20.6; 21.22; 22.1; 22.1)。

无论如何，基督如此崇高的地位， 对于犹太人而言还是有张力的、让他们感觉不安的。

我们可以这样说，论敬拜的范围上，从《启示录》的内容显示，它也已经超出了早先在天庭的范围：那里局限在活物和二十四位长老的敬拜 (4.9-10; 5.8)，但此处还包括难以数尽的天使 (5.11)，以及在天上的、地上的以及地底下的所有受造 - 无所遗漏 (5.13)。

暂时性的小结：

就算撬开了，它有什么内容吗？卷内写着什么？倒出、揭开宇宙历史（不只是人间或者地上的历史）所发生的种种。


（余德林, 2010年1月22日）

New Year New Beginning

Happy New Year to All of you out there
2009 has been a year of change fun excitement
Wonder what 2010 would bring with it

New beginning is not possible
Cos all things is predicate upon the past
There is no new beginning from the day
The womb breaks open and out comes your head
All things are just repeating itself
If God smiles on you then you may see new things unfold
But there's never a new beginning
New beginning don't exist
Only continuation of the past
Every now and every future
are continuation of the past

Can we really start fresh in a new year
Illusions that is what it is
No way... No way...Absolutely no way
What's past is done...what is coming
Is tied to the past... no past no now no future
Death is the new beginning
As lonh as we live...
There is no new beginning

Death come and take me with you
To a new beginning
One that i can start all things fresh
And leaves no regrets for the nest generation

Why why why why why why
I just don't understand why

Why why why why why why
Why must people fall in love

Why why why why why why
Why must I be the object of their love

Please please please please please
Let me go and set me free

Please please please please please
Let me live my life carefree

Please please please please please
before i suffocate and die

Galatians 1:1-5

Paul, apostle not from men nor through a man but through Jesus Christ and God Father who raised him from the dead, and who [are] with me all brothers to the churches in Galatia, grace to you and peace from God Father and our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins for the purpose of removing us from the present evil time according to the will of God and our Father to whom the glory forever amen. (Own Translation)

1. Paul's apostleship did not originates from or in man. He did not receive the title 'apostle' from some council or organization. He received the commission from Jesus Christ and God. This si so unlike certain 'apostles' of our time who received their title from some manmade council. The more ridiculous thing is that those who dish out the titles do not feel ashamed at all. Who gives them the authority to 'knight' themselves and others as apostle? The only authorized person to give another that honor is Jesus Christ (who gave himself for our sins) and God (who raised Jesus from the dead).

2. Jesus did not climbout of the tomb by himself. It is God Father who caused him to come back from the dead. The resurrection was accomplished by the power of God.

3. Paul has a community that stands with him (the brothers with him). This community to certain extend act as the guarantor of Paul's message and character. Church is a community that backs up the message of her messenger and acts as the discerning body as well. Today we don't see the church members fulfilling this role. The Senior Pastor becoems the gatekeeper and the members are passive. But this was not the way it was...may we regain this precious heritage lost in institutionalized church.

4. The purpose of Jesus' sacrifice is to remove us from this evil age. How many times have we forgotten that life in Christ begins here on earth and not in heaven. We must start to live the kind of life that God intents for us and not slack and wait to go heaven.

5. Jesus die according to the will of God. Jesus said the same thing in John, "this command I receive from my Father, to lay down my life and to pick it up again."

Let Me Be

This world...a cage and press-machine
trying ever so hard to hold you in
and mould you to its liking...

Being different ... not conforming
is such difficult task to achieve...
A battle that seems pointless and futile

Why can't we be different..
Why can't we allow others to be different...
Why can't we set others free to be?

What is wrong with being single...
What is wrong to be not in love...
What is wrong to be alone through life's journey?

People I pray please let me go
Let me be free to be...
Let me go the way I was made to be...

Dear God...give me strength to stand
To endure till the end...
Till I see your beautiful hand

The Development of the doctrine in the medieval period

For the current study, it is used to demarcate the period initiated by through Alaric’s conquest of Rome in 410, and the shift of the intellectual world to northern Europe. The shift in the intellectual center also witnesses a change in theological method, i.e. the assimilation of pagan philosophy and patristic theology. This period is characterized by the accumulation of biblical and patristic material considered relevant for particular theological issues and the attempt to resolve apparent contradictions encountered in the process.
The discussion of justification developed as the most appropriate metaphor for the articulation of soteriological convictions. There are two significant developments associated with this:
1. The transference of the discussion of salvation from mythological to moral or legal plane; and
2. The incorporation of Pauline concepts into the later medieval theological discussions.
The mythological discussion of salvation was criticized because it was incongruent with the Righteousness of God, hence, the shift to moral and legal plane. God, being righteous, must act in accordance to his righteousness in the redemption of man (legal/moral propriety) and the method must also be righteous.
The use of Pauline commentaries in the early medieval period influenced the later medieval period. These brought about two pertinent theological questions: salvation of OT patriarch and the relation between faith and work, which theologians have to discuss in relation to the concept of justification. The use of Pauline commentaries contributed to the development of the concept of justification as the most important soteriological concept because it was used by Paul in connection with those soteriological issues. The systemization of theology is the second factor that enhanced the importance of justification as the metaphor for soteriological discussions.

McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 37-40

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo has great impact upon the medieval theology of justification to such extant that all medieval theology can be considered as “Augustinian”. His discussion of the doctrine of justification is the first discussion of significance to emerge and set the framework of which future discussion is to take place.
Augustine’s discussion of justification went through significant development and the watershed is his elevation to the see of Hippo Regis in 395. His ‘first of two books to Simplicianus’ recorded his change of mind regarding his discussion of justification. We need to note also that his discussion developed before the Pelagian controversy, i.e. in a non-polemic context.
Initially, Augustine believed that man can take the initiative in his spiritual ascent to God by believing him and calling upon god to save him, however, was forced to rethink the matter after he was challenged by Simplicianus. This resulted in a change in Augustine’s thoughts about justification and among the important changes are these:
1. Man’s election is based on eternal predestination;
2. Man’s response of faith is God’s offer of grace; and
3. While man possessed free will, it is compromised by sin.
The last of these liberum arbitrium is one of the most difficult aspects of Augustine’s thought. His teaching regarding man’s free will may be regarded as anti-thesis to Pelaganism’s emphasis on the role of human free will in his justification. In his de peccatorum meritis et remissione (411) he refuted the error without denying human free will. He affirmed both grace and free will; the problem is how to relate them. Augustine maintained that man possesses free will but not freedom. Man still has free will after the fall but it is taken captive and does not avail for righteousness but to sin. This does not mean that human free will is lost but it loses its ability to desire for righteousness. The liberum arbitrium captivatum becomes liberated through healing grace. This teaching of liberum arbitrium captivatum resolves the dialectic between free will and grace.
Augustine drew a distinction between operative and cooperative grace. God operates to initiate man’s justification by giving him a will capable of desiring good, and man cooperates with this good will to bring that justification to perfection. Hence, man’s justification is an act of God’s mercy because he does not desire it nor does he deserve it.
Man’s free will is not denied in Augustine’s discussion on justification, but the free will crippled/made dysfunction by sin. God initiates the act of justification by giving man the will to desire good, and man cooperates with that good will to perfect his justification. God operates upon man in the act of justification and cooperates with him in the process of justification. After man is justified, he begins to acquire merit as a divine gift – not man’s work. Merit is God’s gift and eternal life is the result of merit. God is not under obligation to man on account of his merit; it is his liberality that that undergirds the whole idea of merit.
The ‘righteousness of God’ is center to Augustine’s thought. This righteousness is not God’s intrinsic character but that by which he justifies the sinner, i.e. God bestows it to man to make him righteous. This raise the question of theodicy: how can God, being just, justify a sinner? Augustine shows no interest in this question as he was only interested in the mission of Christ (to reveal divine love) rather than his work.
In Augustine’s understanding of justification man needs both the prevenient (operative) and perseverance grace (cooperative) to perfection his justification. This means that God could give someone prevenient grace but not perseverance grace and so the question of predestination. Grace is understood as the operative work of the Holy Spirit and the love of God is given to individual in justification. Our hearts are inflamed to love God and others.
Augustine’s understand of faith as an adherence to the Word of God introduces a strong intellectualism element into his concept of faith, which means it is possible for man to have faith without love. This, however, will not bring us to God if it is not accompanied with love. So faith by itself is inadequate to justify man, it is love rather than faith which is the power that brings about the justification of man. It is inaccurate to say that Augustine’s doctrine of justification is justification by faith; rather it is love that brought about his justification.
For Augustine, man’s righteousness is inherent rather than imputed which means that the righteousness received from God is part of his being and intrinsic to his person. By charity, God comes to inhabit the soul of the justified sinner and there’s a interior renewal of the sinner by the Holy Spirit, i.e. a participation in the divine substance itself (deification). The sinner is given the power to participate in the divine being. The righteousness man received is ontological and not relational (status), and so becomes righteous and a son of God, not just being treated as if he is righteous and a son of God.
Iustificare is understood to mean ‘to make right’ for Augustine and this is significant for his ethical and political thought. The iustitia of an act is defined by the act itself and its motivation. The correct motivation for a righteous act can come only through the work of the Holy Spirit within a believer, so an act may be good but if performed outside the context of faith, it is sterile or even sinful. An act may be moral but not meritorious.
His political thought is also closely related to his doctrine of justification. Justice in community is related to God as the one who orders the universe according to his will. Justice in community, then, is about the right order of the physical world and the right ordering of human affairs and his relationship with the rest of creation. It has nothing to do with forensic or legal categories for Augustine but the ‘right-wising’ of the God-man relationship in all its aspects.
Justification in Augustine’s thought is about ‘making just’ and primarily not about legal or moral rightness. This is where his concept and Ciceronian’s concept of justification differs. God’s righteousness is not about justifying the righteous/godly but the ungodly, and so iustitia Dei is about God’s fidelity to his promises of grace, irrespective of the merits of those to whom the promises was made.
In summary, Augustine’s doctrine of justification can be summarized in three points:
1. Justification encompass the whole process from the moment of justification to its final perfection;
2. Justification is about being ‘made just’ or ‘made to live as God intends man to live’; and
3. It has to do with the restoration of order in the universe or cosmic redemption.

McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 23-36.

Iustitia Dei (Part IV)

Introduction:

The medieval doctrine of justification is greatly influenced by Augustine, terefore, it is important to know Augustine's doctrine of justification. During this time there's also a shift in the theological focus from who is Christ to what he did- person to work.

The pre-Augustinain tradition:

The patristic era is characterised by the effort to reduce the tension between the need for a corpus as regula fidei and the need to expand the corpus in the face of opposition, and the borrowing of hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy for the proclamationof the gospel in a pagan culture. Witht the utilization of hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy, we discover that sometimes there's a subordination of the biblcal to a philosophical view of God. The zeal to preach a Hebraic gospel in a hellenistic milieu has the possibility of compromising the teachings of Christ by the Hellenism of its early followers. This is evidently so in the two major distortions which begin in the east and was transferred to the ermeging wast. These are:1. the introduction of Stoic concept of libeum arbitrium in the articulation of human response to the divine intiative in justification;2. the implicit link between sedaqa, dikaiosune and iustitia and the concept of merit inevitably correlates human effort and justification within the western church.We see a reaction against the above two since the time of Augsutine and the Palagian controversy many be seen as having highlighted teh above two points, although not exactly as it is worded above. Therefore, we have to follow late medieval theological scholarship with the differnetiation before and afte the Pelagain controversy.The early Christian were interested in chirstiology and trinitarian theology and little interest in the idea of justification. It is also evidently that teh ealy christians do not see soteriology in terms of justification. Justification was simply not a theological issue in pre-Augustinian tradition. There is no clear argument on the concept of predestination, fee will and grace as well during this period of time. It was so until controversy forced a full discussion in the church. By end of 4th century the Greek Fatehrs had formulated on the teaching of free will based upon philosophical rather than biblcal foudnations. Reacting against fatalism they avocated the total freedom of man to make his choice of good and evil. It is also with the Latin Fathers that teh idea of original sin first begin to be specualted and its implicit consequences for man's moral faculties.Pauline writing has minimal influence during thsi period can be accreditted to two factgors:

1. uncertainity to the extent of the NT canon; and

2.mainly the church faced external opposition from pagan and semi-pagan fatalism and not from Jewish Christian activist teaching works of the law which is prominent in Paul's writings.

The emphasis in the early fathers on freedom of fallen man and minimizing the concept of original sin is because Gnosticisma nd their anti-Gnostic polemic. This optimism of the capacities of fallen man fall into much suspicion as whether it is truly Christian.The pre-Augustinian period can be cahracterized by the upholding of freedom of fallen man in the face of fatalism. There were many discussions among the early fatehrs regarding the freedom of fallen man to choose good and evil, and God can't force the free will but merely influence it.The western church is slower in their thological development compared to the east, and as such the theological vocab of teh east becomes current in the west. This necessitated the translation of Greek into Latin and teh inevitable shift in sematic field. Tertullian was considered the most influential figure in the western theological traditions and it was him who introduced the term liberum arbitrium to th west. This is evidence of the weak influence of Pauline writings in the early church with the unobstructed introduction of non-biblical, non-Pauline term into the discussion of justification in the early chruch.The earliest commentry of Pauline epsitles is that of Ambrosiaster and his exposition of justification by faith is grounded in the contrast between chistianity and Judaism. It has not yet had the universal notion of justification by faith as a freedom from the works of teh law. It is discussed within the Jewish background of chistianity. Like Tertullian, he is also engrossed with the possibility of man's ability to acquire merit befroe God. For Tertullian, the man who performs good make God his debtor. The Ciceroina concept of justification (giving each man his due) underlines this teaching. This concept of divine obligation is introduced to the west rather naviely and was due to Augustine's theological genius.For teh first three hundred an dfifty years of church history, her teachings regarding justification was inchoate and ill-defined. The navivete and inexactitude reflects a lack of controversy which would force more precise definition of teh terms used. The 'works-righteousness' appraoch of justification is free from latter association during the first centuries and cesed to be innocent during the Pelagian controversy and threatened the gospel as the mesage of God's free grace.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 17-23 )

Iustitia Dei (Part III)

The formation of Christian thought is influenced greatly by Greek philosophy and the LXX. The term dikaiosune had by the 3rd Century acquired a generally Aristotelian sense, something quite close to iustitia distributiva. Aristotle's concept of dikaiosune is set within the context of the polis and has to do with the well being of teh city, hence the righteousness of God is irrelevant since they do not dwell in the city. Evidently, this is not what it was meant in the Heb. sedaqa. Although the LXX tried to be consistent with translating sedaqa with dikaiosune, it was impossible to do so in every occurance of the word. Therefore a second word was used to convey the strong soteriological sense of sedaqa, eleemosune. This pose a danger to the reader of LXX by opposing God's righteousness to His mercy, where in Heb. the same word is used. The western church depended on the Vulgate for the first 15th Century of the Christian milieu for their theological deliberation. Without access to the Heb. OT, they depended on the Lat bible for discussion on iustitia Dei and iustificare. Therefore, it is important to consider the difficulty in translating the Heb. term to Lat. Iustitia had already carried well established connotation by the 2nd century. The Ciceronian definition of iustitia as reddens unicuique quod suum est had become normative. This is quite similar to iustitia dustributiva, and the 'due' is being established through iuris consensus, and embodied in ius. This tension between the Lat. and Heb. is evident.The book that has great influence upon the Christian doctrine of jsutification is the Psalter. The Vulgate translation contains Jerome's second revision of Old Lat Psalter based upon Origen's recension of the LXX version. A second translaltion of Jerome was Psalterium iuxta hebraicam veritatem which was not very popular. The dofference between the two can be seen in Psalm 24.5 where Psalterium Gallicum has misericordiam and Psalterium iuxta hebraicam veritatem used iustitiam. Although there is considerable confusion this is reduced by teh following two factors:1. The Vulgate itself is not consistent in its translation of LXX.2. The two passages that have the greatest influence are Ps 31:1 and 71:2 where the psalmist appeal to God's righteouness to deliver him. A careful study of the passages in their context woudl be able to detect the strong sotriological sense of the owrd iustitia.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 9-12 )

The difficulty for the LXX translatation of hasdiq to dikaoun is two fold:

1. dikaioun, in classical usage, carries the meaning 'to punish' or 'to do justice to'. It is extremely unusal, though there are some occurances, for dikaioun to have the positive meaning of 'to right an injustice suffered' which is closer to the idea of hasdiq (to vindicate, to acquit, to declare to be in the right).Hence the LXX use of dikaioun is representative of a significant shift in its meaning to correspond ot the Heb term.

2. The positive meaning of dikaioun in LXX causes some passages in the Bible to be senseless if read with the understanding of dikaiounin the neagtive sense (eg. Is 5:22-3). Those without Heb background would find these passages perplexing. It seems, therefore, that the LXX use of dikaioun has assumed the meaing of the Heb hasdiq and quite distinct from its classical connotation. This should also mean that the postive meaning of dikaioun is familiar to Greek speaking Judaism else the LXX would have been incomprehsible at some points.This inherent difficulty reflects the difference in semantic field of the two words. A different difficult is encountered when translating hasdiq or dikaioun into Lat. Iustificare is a post-classical word and requires explanation. Augustine's expalnation of of iustificare as iustum facere is followed by latin speaking theologians, accepting -ficare as the unstressed form of facere. This point alone did not warrant the translation of dikaioun to iustificare, but has to do also with reference to the concept of 'merit'.The western church's idea of 'merit' is different from that of the Greek.

Greek --> merit is understood as a quality (adjectival), estimation, something that is external (i.e. the estimation in which he is held by others, and which cannot be treated like a quality)

Latin --> something that is deserved, worthy of something, internal to man's make-up (i.e what it is about him that has caused the estimation in which the individual is held by others)

The Greek verb has the primary sense of being considered or estimated as righteous, whereass the Latin verb denotes being righteous, the reason why one is considered rigteous by others.As we begin to study the development of the dovtrine of justification we must understand that the early theologians depended on the Latin versions of the bible, and approached the subject with a set or presuppositions that are dependent upon Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The translation from Heb. to Gk. to Lat. shifts teh focus thoelogically from iustitia coram Deo to iustitia coram hominibus, from an emphais and reference to God to taht of man. Hence, the discussion of the doctrine of justification in the western chruch surrounds the 'righteousness of man': its nature, process and means.The shift in the theological focus is due to the non-contioguous semantic traisiton of the Heb. to Gk. to Lat. which impacted greatly the shape of the discussion of justification in the western church.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 12-16)

Iustitia Dei (Part II)

The doctrine of justification is linked closely to the concept of righteousness, both semantically and theollogically. It is the concept that God is righteous and acts according to his righteousness, therefore, how then can a righteous God justiy a sinner. The conviction is that God is righteous, man is a sinner and God justifies man. God in his righteousness justifies sinner. The question is how is it possible for a righteous God to acquit/justify a sinner?Modern theological vocabuilaries contain a host fo Hebrew, Greek and Latin words. The words cannot be translated in which it still holds its richness within its own linguistic culture and context. Hence, the transference of the concept of justification in its Hebraic context to that of western Europe pose a great difficulty.The primary source of Christian theology is teh Bible. Therefore, a lot of Christian theology contains many important concepts orginating from the Hebraic context, and the transference of these concepts from Hebrew soil to Greek or Latin soil pose great problem. The western Europe's understandning of justice and righteous is often employed to articulate the doctrine of justification which is unsuited for the discussion of God's righteousness. Here we will look at the Heb., Gk. and Lat understanding of 'righteousness' as a preliminary to our discussion. First is the grapheme, sdq, examined using other ancient oriental language carries the idea of 'donforming to a norm' which is confirmed by the dominant sense of sedeq and sedaqah as 'right behaviour' or 'right disposition'. While Barr criticised the use of etymology to determine the meaning of words, it is acceptable in an attempt to establish their early meanings (McGrath). The oldest menaing of sedaqa is in Judges 5:1-31 which means 'victory'. God demonstrated his righteousness by defending Israel against her enemy. This is undergirded by the framework of covenant whereby God fulfils his covenant obligations to Israel (Israel was to fulfil her obligations to God) and thus a state of righteousness is establshed - 'as they should be'. The 'righteousness' of teh covenant was not threatened within Israel herself until the time of the prophets. The threat becomes increasingly apparent with the appearance of teh concept of 'conditional election'. The continuity of teh covenantal relationship btween God and Israel is based on sedaqa (righteousness). The Heb. sedaqa's conontation of 'right order of affairs' cannot be subsumed under iustitia distributiva (distributive justice) - an impartial judge who administer justice according to which a person has broken the law.Cremer gives us the fundamental insight that the basic sense of sedaqa refers to actual relationship between two person, and implies behaviour corresponding to, or is consistent with, whatever claims may arise from or concerning either party to the relationship. In the Heb. context it is teh relationship between God and Israel. Hence in Heb. sedaqa is characterised as iustitia salutifera.This soteriological tone is brought out in several passages, particularly Deutro-Isaiah. This shade of menaing cannot be brought out by the Lat. iustitia distributiva. This shows that the translation of the Heb. to a second language is very difficult. This is because the semantic field of a word includes not only it synonyms, but also its antonyms, homonyms and homophones. Hence the translation of a word into a second language will inevitably distort the semantic field, so that certain naunces and association present in the original word is lost and new nuances and association not already present make their appearance. The words used already have their own associations and nuances in their original language.This difficulty is present with the translation of sedaqa --> iustitia and hasdiq -->iustificare.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4-9.)

Iustitia Dei

The central teaching of the Christian faith concerns the reconciloiation of man with God in the person of Jesus Christ or teh doctrine of justification. This doctrine is often interpreted with cultural overtones although it is independnent of culture. The church is not only interested in the what man must do to be right with God, but also the process and consequences of such a new relationship. The doctirne is also center of the Christian theological system and teh existence of the church hignes on it. The doctrine of justification has to do with the transformation of sinner into a 'justified' person; changing a man without God to one with God, for God and before God. It is the ultimate expression of the Church's conviction of the work of Christ and tied closely to the historical revelation of God. It defines the conditions under which man can be reconciled to God.Hence, Christ is known through his work and as the locus in which Gdo reconcile the world to himself. It is this soteriological context which provides the framework for teh discussion of the doctrine of justificaiton. The discussion of this doctrine must be distinguished from the discussion of teh concept of justification. The concept has to do with God's saving action toward his people as revealed in the Bible, while the doctrne concerns the method thgrough which man can be reconciled to God. The doctrien of justification is independent of Biblical origins and absent from the NT.It is interesting to note that in the discussion of justification as we hear it today is quite independent of its Pauline origins and its origin lies in an anti-Judaising polemic quite differnet from today, it is still interesting to discover why of all metaphors, justification is singled out for the explication of soteriology.It is an inccident fo history that justification instead of other soteriological methaphor cna be creditted to the following factors:1. The rise of Pauline scholarship during the 12th Century2. High regard for classical jurisprudence3. semantic relationship between iustitia and iustificatio gives rise to the rationalizing of the divine dispensation towards mankind in terms of justice4.Luther's theological difficulties concerning teh Righteousness of God as Gospel, which tied the Reformation closely to the doctrine fo justification5. reconciliation is discussed under teh ageis of doctrine of justification in teh council of TrentIt is only within the west that the doctrine of jsutification has its sphere of influence. The east talks about the concept of deification rather than justification. This is due to the difference in the understand ing of the work of the Holy Spirit, influence of neo-platonism in the east and the west's interest in Roman Law which naturally placed interest in justification.(Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei 2nd ed., 1-4. )

Spiritual Warfare & Eph 6:10ff

Ephesians 6:10ff talks about putting on the armor of God for a warfare against the opposing forces. This passage has been misused by charismatic militia to support the idea of spiritual warfare. Attributing all wars to spiritual dimension is a way fo escape to engage in the reality of the material world, an escapist best defence for being passive in a world of injustice.True enough our struggle is not with fellow human being but with the rulers, powers, world forces of this dark world and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies. Every organization and personnel that engage in work of wickedness and injustice are the lackey of these forces. They are the physical and tangible manifestation and expressions of these forces. The spiritual warfare idea is a distraction to Christian from engaging in the tangible expression and manifestation of God's salvation in the world. We are afraid to be outright in our words and actions and choose to retreat to spiritual fanfare. The declaration and fanfare of the spiritual warfare camp is interesting and entertaining with the 'passionate engagement in fervent prayer, loud declaration of victory chant, strenous praying in tongues, waving of banners, spiritual dance, prayer walking, claiming ground and territory for God'. These are but substitue for the courageous and real struggle with the forces.The armor of God is not some spiritual adornment that we put on in prayer every morning. But the real demonstration of those character of God in our daily living. Definitely we need the power of God to help us as we face the challenge ahead of us and He has given us that power - the same power that he exerted upon christ when he raised him from the dead - the power to overcome injustice and unrighteousness. The injustice suffered by christ at the hands of the authroities is reverted when God declare him just by raising him from the dead. Thsi power of Gdo is given to us that we may stand against injustice and wickedness in our world.The different pieces of the armor is not spiritual quality but things taht we should be exhibiting in our lives.
1. Belt of truth - we need to walk in truthfulness, just like God who is Truthe itself and there is no lie in Him. To put on the belt of truth means we must live a life fo truthfulness, in every area of our life, whether in relationship, business, studies, transactions, words and deeds. This defeats the enemy who is teh fatehr of lies. Teh christian church with all its pompous display of spiritual warfare are not able to overcome the enemy becaus ewe are not living in truthfulness toward each other and toward the world.
2. Breastplate of justice - we need to uphold the justice in places where there are injustice. How many of us stand up for injustice in our society, workplace, school, church, government policies etc? We would rathe rsave our own skin than to risk our neck so that the abused and misused can be freed from injustice.
3. Shoe of the rpeparation of the Gospel of peace - we must be peacemaker in a world where talk of war is more than the talk of peace. Are we always ready with the Gospel of Peace - the reconciliation of ethnic groups, countries, minorities with the majorities, man with God? Is the church an arena of war or peace? Do we seek to keep the bond of peace or destroy peace? This calls for wisdom. How to reconcile the need to fight for justice and o keep peace?
4. Shield of faithfulness - the need to trust is growing ever greater in our world today but how many is trustworthy? God is faithful and will always be faithful to his creation. But are we faithful to each other? If christian can even be faithful with each other and keep faith with each other, how can we stand against the world and the forces that belittle faithfulness. What is important is what you get from it; faithfulness is valueless.
5. Helmet of salvation - What is salvation here? Is it the salvation of our soul? eternal life? Maybe it is not. If the armor is God's, then the salvation here may refer to God's act to save those that are oppressed and imprisoned. The church has more often been the place of oppression than salvation.People may have moved from one form of bondage (sin) to another (autotarial spiritual oppression). We are to be God's agent to bring news of salvation not oppression to a world drowning in oppression and abuse and injsutice, not to add another millstone to their neck.
6. Sword of the Spirit - the Word of God is to bring release and hope to people but often it has been a word of death and oppression and control. Instead of proclaiming freedom and release, the word we declare seek to bring people under bondage, and we disguise such bondage with beautiful and religious jargon to make it soudn spiritual and nice.
Spiritual warfare is real but not in the form of the classical spiritual warfare advocate. We must in deed struggle with these forces but not in the heavenlies. It should be done here, where you move and live and have your being. The war in heaven leave it to God and his mighty angels. Let us concentrate on the war on earth. The line between a coward in the face of injusice and wickedness and true trust in God is a thin one. Do not spiritualize your cowardness but rise up to the occassion and take up your armor tostand against the tide of darkness.Will you fight or flight? Will you break heaven with prayer but not stretch out your neck for the oppressed and abused with a word?

I am reading this book, ‘AQUAChurch 2.0’, and the author talks about our tendency to search for the ‘saviour map’ or recipe for successful ministry or life. However, he reminds us that ‘Jesus gave us and signposts, but not maps’. We can’t depend totally on maps because they are usually: (1) not full representations of reality, (2) not current, (3) directed by the focus of the map-makers, and (4) won’t get you to your destination. It is the same for our own lives. Each person needs to chart his/her own journey as he/she sails through the sea of time. “You can’t reduce God’s way of working with any biblical figure to a cute formula or a colourful map.’ Each person’s map of the world is peculiar and the final pieces come in only when we have reached the other shore.
Today we can read St. Paul’s map because he has finished his journey, not because he had it at the beginning. He sailed through life under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-10). God did not give him a map nor instructed him to search for a ‘saviour map’, but to heed the signposts erected along his paths (life and ministry). We, too, are to be sensitive to the signboards God places along our paths that direct our purposes in life. The same goes for the Children’s Church, may we as one people seek out these signboards and follow its directions, instead of imitating and replicating the successful churches (heroes) – their journey is not ours.

Last few days I was reading Aristotle’s On Sleep and Waking which deals with the topic of sleep. It was interesting that he ended the treatise with this statement, “swvzei gar h; ajnavpausi~” which means “For rest saves (or heals)”. Interestingly, the word used in Genesis 2:3 “He (God) rested from all His work which God had created and made” for ‘rested’ is katapauvw, a synonym of ajnavpauw/ ajnavpausi~ (to cause to rest / rest). God sets the seventh day apart for men so that we can rest and re-create ourselves. This is how important rest is to each one of us. Aristotle emphasized on the effect of rest in his writing, but it is God in all His wisdom who knows that we, human beings, need to have rest so that we will not be exhausted and fall ill. We must have time for recreation in our week, so that we will be re-created. An article in Reader’s Digest March 2009 (Pg. 37) issue has this to say about sleep: teens having trouble falling asleep or staying asleep have the tendency to have blood pressure 4 points higher than teens who slept well. Those who slept less than 6.5 hours a night were 2.5 times more likely than those who slept longer to have elevated blood pressure. Can you imagine if this is what it will do to teens, what greater damage it will do to us, the recycled-teens? So, please take time to rest and go for your own recreation, and also to sleep.
Psalm 127:2, “In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat – for He grants sleep to those He loves.”

I was at the Zoo on Monday morning. I went with some people and they commented that the place is unlike the Malaysian zoo which smells. Our Zoo does not smell of animal waste…but over there you can smell it even at the entrance. The animals and the enclosures are all well kept and clean. The animals look good and healthy to the visitors. The Zoo, I think, works very hard to present the pretty side to the visitors. All the ugly side is dealt with in the secret places, out of the sight of the visitors. The Zoo can look beautiful only if the Zoo keepers have taken care of the animals in the ‘secret chambers’.
This gives me the thought of how important it is to have our daily devotions. Devotions are like the ‘secret chamber’ in the Zoo where the animals are cleaned and getting ready for the day to meet the multitudes of visitors in their best. If we are to spend time with God before we begin the day, I believe we will be more ready to face the day. The Psalmist wrote, “But as for me, I shall sing of Your strength; yes, I shall joyfully sing of your lovingkindness in the morning, for You have been my stronghold and refuge in the day of my distress. (59:16)” If we remind ourselves of God’s lovingkindness and His strength available to us, I think we can face the day better. I encourage you to go before God daily before you step out of your house for work or study. Let us get our ‘animals’ ready to face the world: (1) Meditate on God’s goodness, lovingkindness, and strength (Eph 1:19) for the day, (2) deal with any negative emotions or thoughts you have or anticipate you will have for the day, (3) pray for the people you will be working with that day, and (4) pray for God to help you handle the stress and challenges for the day. Before you enter the office, take a deep breathe, and smile, then step into the office and decide to be joyful in the Lord no matter what happen. Try it and let me know if it helps.