Lok Pal Bill

I am rather tired at the mindless glorification of Anna Hazare and the call for Lok Ayukta’s and the Lok Pal Bill. I have not gone into the details of the whole affair but would like to urge a word of caution.

In all Christian legal systems the burden of proof is on the accuser and if there is a shadow of doubt the defendant is set free. Because of this in all countries which follow a free and fair legal system, people with power and money are impossible to convict of any misdemeanours  and they get away with all sorts of crimes. The issue we are facing today of corruption in high circles is one such, which no country in the world has been able to prevent because of a free and fair legal system.

Because of this, people have tried to weaken the fairness of the legal system so that people can be punished even when there is a shadow of doubt. So we had the system of sending people into exile in ancient Athens and ‘police’ encounters in modern India, Guantunamo Bay in the U.S.

The Lok Pal bill is from whatever I can make, out an attempt to beat the legal system, by providing something which is not as vicious as ‘police encounters’ but not as tame as a free and fair legal system. It is also an attempt to give power to the people. Both are dangerous and will hurt minority communities in the long run.

The NDTV website in their attempt to explain the Lok Pal bill defines it as follows:-

The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and envisages trial in the case getting over in the next

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-is-the-jan-lokpal-bill-why-its-important-96600?cp

It is based on the assumption that ‘good’ people will be in charge and so will ensure justice. All children of tyrannical parents know what ‘good’ parents have done to us. We also know how many of the ‘good’ people who pilloried Clinton in the US turned out to be having not so ‘good’ lives. Lord Acton’s warning should be kept in mind – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the Lok Ayukta’s and other such institutions are given power they will only breed more corruption.

Our present voting system (which is one of the cleanest and fairest in the world) is to ensure that ‘good’ people are elected. Instead 25 % of the MP’s are criminals. That does not justify doing away with our fair system and replacing it with an ‘honest’ dictator!

We need to use the force of Gandhian logic and moral courage to fight corruption and not seek more powers. Gandhian logic was – do without. If a man wants a bribe to give you what you deserve, do not pay him and do without. Lead peaceful protests and use the RTI Act to the maximum extant. Form organisations which will help people use the RTI Act. Moral courage is to stand for justice when you are in a position of power and not succumb to pressure and threats against you. This is, I believe, is the way of Christ – not crusades and more power.

It pains me to see so many ‘Christian’ forums giving mindless support for the movement of Anna Hazare. I would wish that they would form NGO’s to fight for justice with the present legal systems available.

Prayer

The Lord's prayer goes as follows:-

1. Our Father who art in heaven
2. Hallowed be thy name
3. Thy kingdom come
4. Thy will be done on earth ...

Once we have said Thy will be done, is there any meaning in further prayer? There are two extreme views on prayer - both of which I think misses the mark.

The first sees God in complete control and all that has to be done is His will and so prayer is an attempt to ascertain His will. It is a conversation with God where I am through discussion understanding God's plan and purposes. The second makes prayer much simpler where it is asking God for whatever you need or think you need :).

James 4:2 and 3 reads as follows, "yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts"

This brings out the following points:-

1 You do not have because you do not ask. This means that you need to ask otherwise it will not happen. It is not just a question of telling God - your will be done, but it means based on our understanding asking God for specific needs and requirements.
2. Prayer is not about asking for things you want. God does not answer prayer which is to fulfil your lusts!!

So what is prayer? I build my understanding of prayer on the following premises:-

1. II Cor 5:15 - we are no longer living for ourselves but for Jesus. The focus of our lives is the kingdom Matt 6:33.
2. My prayer is therefore always linked to the kingdom and what I need for the purposes of the kingdom - which includes peace of mind, basic needs etc.
3. Ezek 22:30 - God sought for a man, but since he was not found God's wrath came upon the nation. In other words the future of the nation was in the hands of the man who was meant to pray for the nation.
4. Hezekiah's prayer where God changes His word on his request.
5. The doctrine of freewill. We were not meant to be robots, but people with a personality, emotions and desires.

I believe that as we walk in the path laid out for us, God has given some freedom to us to create out own future. At times God over-rides events we create by His acts, but He never over-rides our will. That requires willing submission. So I need to plan for the future and decide on courses of actions using the intellectual abilities God has given me, AND I NEED TO PRAY THESE INTO EXISTENCE. In prayer, as you come to understand God's mind you may change the plans and the prayers.

In essence then, prayer is not just telling God let your will be done, or just trying to understand God's will - which is essentially the Islamic understanding of God and prayer, but an interactive exercise between you and God in creating the future in your area of responsibility.

Judas

How sustainable is the argument that Judas was not wanting to betray Jesus but was rather trying to precipitate a crisis so that Jesus' messiahship would be forced to into the open? This has been a view of a few but has little support with most Christians. What are the arguments in support of such a view?

1. The remorse he felt when Jesus did not resist arrest but went willingly to be crucified. Judas' suicide is taken to mean that the result of his betrayal was not what he expected.

I do not find any other support for such a view of Judas' betrayal.

What are the arguments against such a view?

1. The fact that the apostles were unsympathetic to Judas and saw it as a simple betrayal for money
2. John (John 12:6) says that Judas was a thief supporting the view that once he lost faith in Jesus' pacifist ways he decided to convert Jesus into money.
3. The view is pure speculation as it has no Biblical documentation.

What probably happened?

1. After the feeding of the 5000 Jesus' teaching was focused on preparing the apostles for the event of the cross. He teachings were focused on what it means to live the life of the cross in your day to day to life. It would appear that this teaching led Judas to lose faith.
2. The anointing of Mary may have been a turning point - when he saw Jesus majoring on non-essentials on (adulation of women) and ignoring the essentials the liberation of the Jews. After the period of popularity (which Judas probably saw as the laying of the foundation of a following) Jesus' teaching changed tack and He lost a lot of followers - John 6:66. This loss of followers would have raised many queries in Judas' mind about the intention of Jesus.
3. When he came to betray Jesus, one look by Jesus into his eyes (speculative) must have shattered him just as Peter's betrayal shattered Peter.

I do not see any need for speculation on Judas' motive when the Bible says .

Divorce

It has been debated that Jesus in Matthew 19:8 has said that Moses had given the permission to divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 because of the hardness of the heart of the Jews and this was not God's will. That obviously creates a problem as it implies that the Old Testament is not a true reflection of God's will. So is Jesus, like in the Sermon on the Mount, re-interpreting the Law of Moses or is He changing the Law of Moses?

In Deuteronomy 24:1 the wording reads as follows:- "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:" The word for 'uncleanness' is 'erwah which means 'nudity'. The same word is used in Leviticus 18 and is translated as 'nakedness' meaning to have sexual relationships with. The same word could also mean something shameful.

So two school of thought was there amongst the Jews - one which believed that divorce was permissible for infidelity and one who believed it was permissible for anything shameful. Jesus, in His answer sides with the first interpretation and so he is not saying that Moses was wrong but that he is being interpreted wrongly. This wrong interpretation is because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews.

Some however do not accept the Matthean exception which permits divorce for adultery and insists that Malachi 2:16 us absolute when it says "God hates divorce". However for us who believe in the inspiration of the scriptures we have no problem with the Matthean exception.

The Pauline in I Corinthians 7 exception has proved more controversial. Paul says in I Corinthians 7:10-11 that while divorce was not permissible, separation was. So some spouses have walked out on the basis of this verse.  I do not think that this verse is a permission to separate, but rather a ban on a second marriage if one has waled out on the first.

More controversial is the interpretation of I Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases". What does it mean to say that if ones spouse leaves him/her he/she is not under bondage. Does it mean that if you have been abandoned by your spouse you are free to remarry? That is how I have interpreted it, but many conservative scholars do not agree.

In other words, according to Paul, if you walk out on your spouse you cannot remarry, but if your spouse walks out on you, you can.

Of course none of this is meant to be read with an intention to walk out on ones spouse, but with a heart to understand the mind of God in a difficult situation. Ultimately Malachi hit the nail on the head when he said "God hates divorce".

Last Supper a Passover Meal?

The new Taftee term has begun and we have begun the study of the Synoptic gospels. We are looking at some of the controversies from the gospels which really have no answer. One such we look at this week is why do Mathew, Mark and Luke make the Last Supper the Passover meal when John does not. In fact John 19:14 says that the Passover meal was being readied at the time of the trial. Is it possible to reconcile this difference?

I prefer to go with Mathew, Mark and Luke as a crucifixion on the Passover day is unlikely. The crowds would be difficult to handle without the anger at a crucifixion adding to the turmoil.

In which case is John mistaken or symbolic – Jesus is our Passover and so was sacrificed on the Passover day? Can John be mistaken on so important an event and time? If not, then a symbolic meaning is more likely.

If it is symbolic, how accurate is the dating and the events in the rest of John?

Where did Mark get his materials

It is usually said that Mark obtained his materials from being Peter's interpreter. This comes from a statement made by Bishop Papias. We know from Peter's epistle that Mark was close to him as he refers to him as his son I Peter 5:13.

My struggle with this perspective is that key events in the life of Peter is not mentioned by Mark. The first meeting with Jesus mentioned by John. The first recognition that Jesus was somebody special in Luke 5. The call by Jesus to him to feed the sheep in John 22.

So to me it would appear that Mark got his materials either by having been a witness of a part of Jesus' ministry and by ministering along with Paul and Peter. The content is chosen by him to convey his understanding of the gospel and not Peter's.

Mark wrote his gospel for a Roman audience and he may have written it first as the need for a gospel may have been more urgent in Rome than in Palestine.

Matthew 21:43 - 'bringing forth fruits thereof'

Matthew 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

What are the fruits here referring to? If we read the full passage beginning in Matthew 21:33 and compare verse 33 with Isaiah 5:2 we find that Jesus has drawn this parable from Isaiah 5. In Isaiah 5:7 it says that the vineyard is the nation of Israel. The vine dressers in Jesus parable is then the Israelite leaders responsible for developing the thinking in the nation.

They will be judged, according to Jesus and the kingdom of Israel given to the people who bring forth fruits. This fruits is referred to in Isaiah 5:7 as justice and righteousness. Hence the fruits here refers to the life of the leaders and not ‘the fruits of evangelism’ per se. This brings us back to what Jesus says “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”. Following Jesus brings about the nature of Christ and the fruits of the Spirit as given in Galatians 5:22. Then Jesus gives us the vineyard of ministry and we become fishers of men.

The parable in Matthew is essentially against the Jewish leadership, but is also a prophecy o the destruction of the Jewish nation and its leadership and the establishing of the church. But only those who bear the fruits of the Spirit are members of this church, the rest being tares.