When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?

A date for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ has again been (wrongly) predicted. The idea of "blood moons" motivated the predictions made by Mark Blitz as well as the proclamation by John Hagee that "something" is about to change. Although this plays into the hands of sceptics, it should at the same time motivate Christians to do their homework better. In this essay, I present an outline of future events leading to the Second Coming based on good hermeneutical (interpretive) principles. I engage both the believer and the sceptic in the conversation. I also engage with current events.

It is now nearly 2000 years since the death of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that he was resurrected, returned to the Father in heaven and would one day return to earth. This event is called the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Since the time of the early church, this event has been expected in every generation. In our own time, there are again many Christians who expect the return of Jesus in the near future. Was and is their hope futile? Would he really return as he has promised? Should we still take such prophesies serious or should we accept his non-appearance and (as Christians) develop other manners to think about those texts? Or is there a middle road according to which we might expect his return in accordance with the prophecies - using a good hermeneutical approach to construct an outline of expected prophetic events leading to the eventual return of Jesus Christ?

According to an old saying, there are always two sides to a story. In fact, there are always more sides to any story. These often include misguided positions, which may become well-established but which are nonetheless ill-conceived. Insofar as we are working with texts, this refers to interpretations that are not grounded in good hermeneutical principles. The problem is to clear all the smoke that such readers produce on-stage and to present good, solid interpretations which would give us safe passage through the clashing rocks on both sides of the waterway of life (just like Jason and his Argonauts at the entrance to the Black Sea).

On the one hand, we find those who so often announce the imminent return of Jesus; on the other hand there are those from the Biblical Criticism tradition (although not all) who do not think that "prophecies" have any bearing on future events (for a detailed discussion of this view, see [1]) and try to ascribe new meanings to the idea of the Second Coming (maybe that it happens every Sunday during the church service). In this essay, I present a view which accepts that Biblical prophecy regarding end-time events would be fulfilled - but also that these things would happen in their own time. I give an outline of how I believe that future events will unfold according to Bible prophecy as well as how that relates to current events in the world.

Taking Bible prophecy serious

We have become used to Christians proclaiming the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Although the days of the Seventh-Day-Adventist's wrong predictions and expectations are long gone, there are new voices who have taken their place and proclaim that they have calculated the dates correctly and call upon Christians to prepare themselves. In 1988 there were many who expected Jesus's return since that date was one generation (40 years) since the restoration of Israel in their land. In 1993-5 there were others who did calculations based on the approaching millennium (the thousand years of Jesus's rule on earth) which was expected around the year 2000 and announced the imminent rapture which would take place seven years before that.

A few years later, Harold Camping announced that the rapture would take place on 21 May 2011. In 2008 Mark Blitz pronounced that the Second Coming might be in the Fall of 2015, based on his readings of the four consecutive "blood moons" (lunar eclipses during which the moon appears to be red) which occur on Jewish feast days (four over a two year period; although three of these were not visible from the Holy Land). John Hagee wrote a bestseller on the topic of blood moons. He was more careful and merely said that "something" is about to "change".

The last blood moon in the tetrad was on 28 September 2015. Although nothing happened on this day, we can expect that the vagueness of his prediction would allow Hagee to relate it to any important event that involves Israel in the next few years (It might very well happen that the tension in the Middle East boils over into a conflict that involves Israel, but one might see that without any recourse to "blood moon" readings! [2] Even if this leads to a third world war (see [2]), this does not mean that the end is near). We might expect that there would in future be others who take one generation (70 years?) since 1967, when Israel took control of the city of Jerusalem, as a reason to predict the imminent rapture.

All these predictions regarding the Second Coming of Jesus have one thing in common: They assume that the Second Coming can take place without other important prophetic events that precede it. When Jesus was asked about the time of his coming and the end of the world (Matt. 24:3), he surely mentioned various general signs which would occur with increased intensity just like the "sorrows" preceding birth (false Christs, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution), but he also mentioned some very particular events (see below). Jesus focused merely on those events that involve the Jewish temple since that was the context of the disciples' question to him. We can, however, include more such events when other relevant prophecies are taken into consideration. This would mean that we do not reject Bible prophecy due to all these false predictions; on the contrary, we take it seriously enough to apply good interpretative principles to such prophecies. This would mean that all the important prophecies on this theme are taken into account as well as the manner in which they all fit together in the context of the Second Coming.

As expected, these wrong predictions provide critics with "manna from heaven" (I have seen some comments in this regard [3]). Throughout the ages, there had been interpreters who developed interpretations which may be regarded as reactions against such misguided approaches regarding future events. Some of these scholars from the Biblical Criticism tradition believe that "prophecies" should only be considered in the historical context of the prophets. They do not think that we should expect any future fulfilment of such prophecies since those ancient people could, in their scholarly opinion, obviously not have known what would happen in future. In the context of the modernist roots of this discipline [4], the early scholars of this discipline believed that they had some "objective" view on those ancient times which allowed them to reject any possibility of divinely-inspired prophecy.

Although critical scholars might have such a view regarding prophecy, this is not the manner in which ancient Israel understood prophecy. I previously wrote in this regard: "The problem is, however, that the people of that time did believe that the oracles were God-given and this influenced their whole perspective on life. Once this aspect is removed, we do not arrive at some “objective” point of view – we arrive at a reductive view with no correspondence to the historical situation. The fact is that they held those beliefs. The prophet, as well as those who listened to him, believed that these oracles came from God. This was part of their worldview; it determined their whole concept of life and the place of major (especially catastrophic) events therein. This is the historical situation! [1]" As such, they also believed that prophecies may have their fulfilment long after the lifetime of the prophets (for a detailed discussion, see [1]). Although scholars might not believe in divine-inspiration, that does not exclude the possibility that the ancients were in fact right in this regard! 

In my view, any scholar should be open-minded regarding metaphysical matters. We should not immediately reject interpretations which take the futuristic aspect of prophecy serious - the ancient Israelites and the early church held that view and such interpretations would at least be in agreement with their expectations. If we take the texts seriously (and not merely impose our own readings on it without regard for their views as the great philosophers Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur taught us), then such interpretations would be more in tune with the long Israelite tradition of interpreting prophecy than our own modern perspectives in this regard. Once we allow that such prophecies might be God-given and therefore refer to future events, we can study the texts in that manner. Then "futuristic" is not a swear-word; it merely refers to the fact that the Second Coming of Jesus may be taken seriously as something that would really happen and that would, in turn, imply that there may be various other related prophecies that would also have a future fulfillment in the period leading up to that event.

Discerning important prophecies about end time events

Although there are many prophecies that may be taken as referring to end-time events, there are certain prophecies among these that are of special importance for the simple reason that they give a broad perspective on such events; they provide us with a general outline according to which end-time events may be structured. In my view, the most important prophecy in this regard is the one that we find in Daniel 7. I discussed this prophecy in detail elsewhere [5] and would not go into such detail here. Once we have such an outline we can relate all the other prophecies about end-time events to that.

What is important about this prophecy is that it tells about the various great Middle Eastern empires which would rule over Israel until the time when "one like the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven", who would receive dominion, glory and everlasting kingship over all the earth (Dan. 7:13-14). He would appear at the time when an Ancient of Days, who sits on a flaming throne, would render judgment (Dan. 7:9, 10, 13). If we take the divine-inspiration of prophecy serious and accept that Jesus refers to this prophecy in the context of his Second Coming when he spoke of himself as "the Son of man [who would] come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30), then we might view this prophecy as including events throughout history to the Second Coming (which has obviously not yet arrived; it would not happen in secret but with "great power and glory"). As such, this prophecy might provide a framework by which we can allocate other relevant end-time prophecies in which the same or similar symbols are used.

What is further remarkable about this prophecy, is that it has a twin: there is another prophecy in the Book of Daniel which agrees on each point with this one, even though other symbols are used (in Daniel 2). When prophecies are repeated in this manner, it accentuates that their outcome is sure (Gen. 41:32) as is also asserted in Daniel 2:45. In the vision of the prophet described in the Book of Daniel, chapter 7, various beasts rose from the sea. In Nebuchadnezzar's dream in chapter 2, a metal statue is depicted. The four beasts (lion, bear, leopard and a dreadful and terrible beast that was exceedingly strong with great iron teeth) correspond with the four metals from which the statue was made (gold, silver, brass, iron). In both cases the last one is depicted as stronger than all the others, as a beast/metal which "brake in pieces" (Dan. 7:7; 2:40) and devour/subdue. The great beast had ten horns whereas the statue had ten toes. The "Son of Man" who came with the clouds of heaven at the time of the great judgment agrees with the rock which broke the statue in pieces and filled the earth. Both prophecies mention the "everlasting kingdom" that would follow.

I have previously shown (I discuss all the views [5]) that this prophecy has to a large extent been remarkably fulfilled if we take the symbols in the following manner (which is by far the most reasonable explanation): the lion/gold refers to the Neo-Babylonian empire (626-539 BC); the bear/silver refers to the Persian empire (550-330 BC); the leopard/brass refers to the Greek empire (of Alexander the Great; 356-323 BC) which was divided into four in the time after his death (323-63 BC etc.) in agreement with the four heads of the leopard; the great and terrible beast or iron which is depicted as stronger than all the others refers to the Roman Empire (27 BC- 476 AD) which was divided into two in agreement with the two legs of iron.

Roman Empire: divided into two

I argued that the two feet (made of iron mixed with clay) which came after the two iron legs but preceded the ten toes (made of the same), refer to two empires which came in the place of the eastern and western parts into which the old Roman Empire was divided, namely the Byzantine Empire (306-1460 AD) in the east and the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806 AD; [6]) in the west - which were less powerful than the once mighty Roman Empire. In my view, the iron refers to the Latins (Romans) and the clay to the Germanic peoples who lived (for the most part) to the north of the Roman Empire but later settled within its boundaries. Both of these were included in these empires, whose geographical areas changed a lot over the duration of their existence. Below is a map of Europe which shows both the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire at a time when the last was much reduced from its original size. Observe that these two empires included the core areas of the two parts of the old Roman Empire.

Holy Roman and Byzantine empires

The ten horns/toes would refer to an empire that comes after that but which has not yet appeared. These are "ten kings" who will rise from the (geographical area of the) old Roman Empire (Dan. 7:24) to rule over a single end-time empire (Dan. 2:42). After that an eleventh horn appeared between the ten other horns and grew greater than them; this depicts a great Antichristian figure who would persecute the saints for 3 1/2 years (Dan. 7:25) in the time directly before the coming of the Son of man with the clouds of heaven at the time of the great judgment (Dan. 7:13-28; see the discussion above).

We can now relate this to another important prophecy which uses the same symbols and clearly builds upon this very prophecy. This is the prophecy that we find in the Book of Revelation which also depicts a beast that appears from the sea. This beast is composed of the four beasts depicted in the vision described in Daniel 7 (see above). Again its ten horns are said to depict "ten kings" who have "no kingdom as yet" (i.e. in 96 AD when the prophecy was given), but who would have "one mind" and would give their power and strength to the beast (Rev. 17:12-13). The beast would be a great warrior-king (emperor?) who receives his power from Satan (Rev. 13:1-7). He would blasphemy against God and persecute the saints for 3 1/2 years. In the end, he would fight together with the ten kings against the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) during the last great battle (Rev. 17:14; 19:19). The description of this beast corresponds closely with the eleventh horn of Daniel 7. Both prophecies refer to an end-time Antichrist which would appear shortly before the Second Coming (as is clearly said in both these prophecies).

The prophecies of the eleventh horn of Daniel 7 and the great beast of Revelation (both of which refer to the final Antichrist) have an interesting detail in common. Both mention that this person will persecute the saints for 3 1/2 years (also called "a time [one year], and times [two years], and half a time [half year]", 42 months or 1260 days). Why this particular period? This period actually also figures in another important prophecy in the Book of Daniel about the final seven years (Dan. 9:22-27). I have also discussed this prophecy in detail and would not go into detail here (I discuss all the views [7]).

According to this prophecy (in Daniel 9), there would eventually rise "a coming prince" from the people who would destroy the city of Jerusalem (which happened when the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD) who would conclude a covenant for seven years with many. This "coming prince" is depicted as the opposite of Messiah, the "prince" [8]. In the middle of this final seven-year period, this ruler would stop the sacrifices at the temple and set up an "abomination" in the temple which would leave it "desolate" (Dan. 9:27). This means that the last half of the final seven years - the final 3 1/2 years - would be an especially difficult time for Israel. It seems reasonable to take this as the 3 1/2 years during which the Antichrist would persecute the saints (together with Israel) in accordance with the previously discussed prophecies.

When the disciples asked Jesus about his coming and the end of the world, he also refers to this final period. Jesus said that the most important sign that the end is at hand, would be when we see the "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" standing in the temple (Matt. 24:15, see [9]). This clearly refers to the just mentioned prophecy in Daniel 9 according to which such an abomination would be set up in the temple. Jesus says that this would lead to very difficult times in Israel (and for the Jewish Christians living there). In fact, this would be the time of the "great tribulation" (Matt. 24:21). Then, immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun would go dark, and the moon, and the powers of heaven would be shaken, after which would appear the Son of man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:29-31). This is when "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood (!) before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 2:31).

A summary of end-time events

In my view we can from the short discussion above discern the following events in the period before the Second Coming [10]:

1) A re-established "Roman" Empire. According to the prophecy of Daniel 7 the "ten kings" (and also their leader, the final Antichrist) would appear from the old Roman Empire. Although this might merely mean that they would rise in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire, it seems quite possible that that empire itself will also rise again in some form and that the ten "kings" would rule in that context. One might expect that at least some politico-economic structure would be established in the geographical area of the empire before the ten "kings" appear - although the empire itself may only become established once a new emperor is appointed.

We have seen that the empires which were depicted by the two feet of the statue of Daniel 2 came to an end in 1806 AD (when Napoleon dismantled the Holy Roman Empire). As such, the current EU project might be the first stage in the fulfilment of the next part of the prophecy (i.e. the ten toes; for a detailed discussion of the rising EU in this context, see [11]) and could lead to the formation of a re-established Roman Empire. EU is, in fact, rising in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire and includes countries from both the western and eastern parts of that empire. In my view, such a future empire would, at least in its first stage, be a re-established Holy Roman Empire.

When the future development of the EU into a new Holy Roman Empire is considered, one should mention that Charlemagne (Charles the Great), the original founder of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD, was not only recognized as "emperor of the Romans" after the original Roman emperors; he was also considered as successor to the first Christian emperor and as such he was called the "new Constantine" (although the Holy Roman Empire was geographically restricted to the western part of the old Roman empire, the emperors of this empire were viewed not merely as successors to the Western Roman emperors, but to Constantine himself).

As the one who was the first to unify post-Roman Europe, Charlemagne is generally recognized today as the "Father of Europe". During his reign, the name Europe (originally a girl of Greek mythology who rode on the white bull Zeus) became generally applied to the continent that now bears her name. After World War II, Charlemagne became a symbol for the unification between France and Germany in the context of the developing EU, since both the French and German monarchies descended from him. Charlemagne is one of the most important personifications of the EU, together with the symbol of Europa riding the bull.



2) The rule of the ten "kings". This would be a very important signal that the end may be approaching. These "kings" would rule over an empire which would appear in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire; both parts of that empire (depicted by the two legs) would be included in the empire of the ten "kings" (the ten toes came out of the two feet which came out of the two iron legs). This means that at least the core areas of these parts would be included in the framework of the area ruled by the ten "kings".

Since Greece represents the core area of the eastern part of the old Roman Empire, I argued previously (in the context of the first Greek financial crisis in 2011, so far correctly [12]) that Greece would not be ejected from the Eurozone if the ten "kings" are to rise eventually from this structure (this might be regarded as preliminary confirmation of the validity of my eschatological model). According to the prophecy, the ten toes were furthermore made of iron and clay - which I take as referring to the mix of the Romans (iron) and Germanic nations (clay) which came about after the old Roman Empire. This is why the eventual Antichristian empire may also include (just like the current EU) many European countries to the north of the border of the old Roman Empire (countries like the Netherlands, Germany etc.).

The question is: In what manner could the ten "kings" rise in the context of the EU? The EU is developing a complex politico-economic structure which includes various levels of integration - very similar to the depiction of the "tower of Babylon" by Pieter Breugel (1563) which was included on official EU posters (see below). The levels of the current EU include a free trade zone at the lowest level, then the border-free Schengen area and then the Eurozone (countries who use the Euro). One might expect that an even smaller group of (ten?) powerful Eurozone countries would at some point proceed towards political integration within the framework of the EU and that the rule of the ten "kings" might in time appear in this context. The formation of such a political union would take time and one can think that eventually a "Council of Ten" (the "ten kings" of Biblical prophecy) could be formed in the framework of the European Council (this council includes the heads of EU states and the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission).

3) The rise of the Antichrist. According to the discussed prophecies, the final Antichrist would appear when the ten "kings" give their power and strength to him. He may take seat number 666 in the EU parliament which is kept vacant. One should not necessarily think that the first ruler of a political union in the context of the EU would be the Antichrist. It is possible that the position of the emperor would eventually be reinstalled - and that the final Antichrist would be the last emperor [13].

We may understand the depiction of the mighty beast from the sea (in Revelation; the Antichrist) which was composed of the beasts of Daniel 7, as meaning that his empire would include the geographical areas of all those empires (depicted by those beasts). That would mean that his empire would stretch from the geographical area of the old Roman Empire (which included Europe, North-Africa, areas around the Black Sea and parts of the Middle East including Israel) as far as Iran [14] and Afghanistan since that was the extent of the Persian and Greek empires. We can expect that other areas of the world which would be in alliance with the EU (probably the USA, Africa, India, other countries in the east etc.) would also in some manner be subjected to the reign of the Antichrist. We do not know how large the empire would grow even before the Antichrist appears.

4) The conclusion of a covenant for seven years. When such a leader concludes a covenant for seven years (maybe with some Israeli's, i.e. if we take other multiple prophecies like Daniel 11:31, 32 into consideration) then Christians may seriously consider the possibility that this person is indeed the final Antichrist.

5) The abomination in the temple. According to Jesus, this is the definite sign that the Antichrist has appeared. In my view, this is the event that St. Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2 which would happen shortly before "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together with him", namely that the "man of sin", the "son of perdition" (see also Rev. 17:8), would be "revealed" when he sits in the Jewish temple and presents himself as God. This means that the Jewish temple would be rebuild before that time. Since that would take longer than 3 1/2 years, one would expect that the Jewish temple would be rebuilt even before the Antichrist concludes the covenant for seven years.

We might view the current conflict on the temple mount as a precursor to that: it is quite possible that the Jews would start organizing different times for Jews and Muslims to visit the temple mount, and that this might later evolve into various designated areas for such visits. The area to the north of the Dome of Rock might eventually become such a designated Jewish area where the temple could be built (it seems that this may be the spot where the temple once stood in alignment with the eastern gate of the ancient city).

6) The great tribulation. This period of 3 1/2 years follows the revelation of the Antichrist as such (i.e. the "abomination") in the Jewish temple. The Antichrist would persecute the saints as well as Israel.

7) The great battle of Armageddon when Jesus Christ would appear in great power and glory.

In this exposition, I have not discussed any of the views regarding the rapture. One should, however, not miss the point that events 1-3 would precede the rapture in all views thereof, including when it is taken as happening seven years before the end [15].

Conclusion

In this essay, I discuss the very important question: When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected? I suggest that any serious seeker after the truth would discard both the simplistic as well as the critical views about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. They would steer clear of both of these dangerous clashing rocks to land safely on the other side. Such a person would carefully consider the prophecies without metaphysical preconceptions. They would allow for the possibility that the prophecies might, in fact, all be exactly fulfilled. I present an outline of that prophetic calendar in accordance with good hermeneutical (interpretative) practice. As such, I distinguish various important events on the road to that great day.

The first event that should focus our attention, is developments in the context of the geographical area of the old Roman Empire which may later evolve into a re-established Holy Roman Empire. I argue that the current EU may present exactly such a precursor to the eventual events that would lead to the appearance of the Antichrist. I expect that we would eventually see that a group of important Eurozone countries would integrate themselves into a political block - and that the "ten kings" of Biblical prophecy would eventually arise in this context. The Antichrist, who would appear as their leader, would be recognized as such when he sits in the rebuilt Jewish temple and requires worship as God. At that stage, all true Christians would (hopefully) know that the end is at hand.

[1] Click on Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?
[2] Click on: Is A Third World War Brewing?
[3] Bertus Osbloed van Niekerk wrote: "Of die wêreld nou eindig of nié, ek en Hendrik het 'n afspraak om môre in die Helderberg te gaan wyn proe. Ons wil minstens vier plase inpas. As Jesus môre weer wil kom, moet hy maar iewers op die roete by ons aansluit. Ons het nou al hoeveel keer vir hom gewag op ander datums, maar hy kom nooit nie. Nou begin ons maar solank sonder hom". (op Facebook, 22/8/2015)
[4] Click on A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
[5] Click on The rise of the final world empire: the different views

Die tien horings van Daniël 7 - waarna verwys dit?

[6] The Holy Roman Empire had two seats of power, namely 1) the pope in Rome, who through the crown, invested 2) the emperor with special authority as the legitimate successor of the Roman emperors.
[7] Click on The final seven years: the different views
[8] The prophecy in Daniel 9:22-27 is about 70 "weeks" of years prophesied over Israel and the city of Jerusalem. These weeks of years are divided into three parts: the first seven weeks (7 x 7 = 49 years), the next 62 weeks (62  x 7 = 434 years; the first and second periods are consecutive) and the last period of 1 week (7 years). According to the prophecy, the period of the 70 weeks would commence with the command to restore Jerusalem and build its walls, which was given in 445 BC by the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus (when Nehemiah returned). Then, after 69 weeks (69 x 7 = 483 years), the Messiah would reveal himself as "prince" (king). That happened in accordance with the prophecy of Zacharia 9:9 when Jesus entered Jerusalem on the donkey on Palm Sunday. This period of 69 weeks has been very precisely fulfilled (see note 6 in my book Op pad na Armageddon).
According to the prophecy, the Messiah would die directly after that, which happened on the first Friday thereafter, during the Passover of 32 AD. After that Jerusalem would be destroyed, which happened in 70 AD. Eventually, the time would come when "a coming prince" from the people who destroyed Jerusalem (i.e the Romans), would conclude a covenant for seven years (the final seven years). I place this last period of seven years in future since (to mention just one reason) such a "covenant" of seven years has never been found in the relevant context in history. I have previously shown that this is by far the most reasonable way to interpret the text [6].
[9] The Prophetic Discourse is a multiple prophecy - two events that are removed in time are presented in the same prophecy. These are 1) the events that happened within a generation after the prophecy when Jerusalem was taken by the Romans and 2) future events that have not yet come to pass. In both cases, these events (would) include an abomination in the temple (and probably the takeover of the city of Jerusalem). In the first case a banner with the head of the Caesar was placed in the temple; in the second case, the Antichrist would sit in the temple as God. We find that the versions of the Prophetic Discourse given in the Gospels of St Luke and St Matthew reflect these different "mountain peaks of prophecy" (this expression originates from the fact that consecutive mountain peaks are often seen as one when observed from the bottom of the mountain).
[10] This outline is a much-reduced version of the one which I present as part of a well-illustrated power-point series about these events at ministry schools and congregations in South Africa and Europe (in English and Afrikaans).
[11] Click on The European Union: forever rising

[12] Click on Gaan Griekeland in die Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief

[13] Who would the Antichrist be? For some considerations in this regard, read The Priory of Sion is back

[14] Click on A New Iranian Empire is rising
[15] Readers often argue that Jesus can come at any time because he said that his coming would be like a thief in the night (Matt. 24:43). This is, however, not the right way to understand that image. St. Paul says: "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day would overtake you as a thief" (1 Th. 5:4-5). In the Book of Revelation, this image is used in the context of the great battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:15-16).

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud 

The author has written a few books on eschatology including Op pad na Armageddon, 31 bepeinsings oor Openbaring en ander Bybelprofesieë (1995) asook Die Arabiese Opstande, Hoe raak dit die vervulling van Bybelprofesieë oor die eindtyd (2011, Griffel). He has a Masters in Philosophy (University of Cape Town) as well as a PhD in physics (University of Natal). He writes and lectures on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.

If readers find the essay important for current debate, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others.

Read also:

Part 1: Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?

Part 2: The rise of the final world empire: the different views

Part 3: The final seven years: the different views

Part 4: The final Antichrist: the different views

Part 5: When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?

Part 6: The Rapture: The different views
A very remarkable prophecy

The Jews: the people of God?

The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis

The Book of Genesis is one of the most discussed books in the Bible and stands at the centre of the great debates about the origin of our universe and of all life on earth. To what extent can we take it seriously in the context of current scientific research? The problem bedevilling the interpretation of this book is the modernist approaches that had been used to read it since the beginning of the science-religion discussion - readings that take our contemporary perspective as the point of departure. I propose a different approach, grounded in a Sumerian hypothesis. This changes our reading of the book in substantial ways and solves many of the interpretive problems, especially in the first few chapters. It also provides some answers regarding origins.

The Book of Genesis is one of the great books of the ancient world. Few other ancient books are so intensely discussed in our time as this book. Although there are many other ancient books and stories that give an ancient perspective on creation, this book is unique in that so many well-educated people from all over the world take it seriously even in our day and age - believing that it had been divinely inspired and as such provides answers, not merely about the origins of the cosmos and life in it, but also about the true meaning of human existence. This is indeed the great quest before humans, trying to answer the question: What is the meaning of our existence? And it seems that the Book of Genesis may give some answers in this regard.

The problem with the Book of Genesis is that so many different people have so many different ideas about the manner in which we should understand the book! People from other religions than the Judaeo-Christian tradition and secularists are obviously not so taken by the book, but this does not mean that they cannot also appreciate the remarkable agreements between the book and modern science - for example, that the cosmos had an origin "in the beginning" when matter (heaven and earth) came into existence in time and space (in accordance with Einstein's general theory of relativity and the Big Bang theory). One also finds that the increase in the complexity of life forms which came into being through time is a feature of both science and the first chapter of the book. Some Christian scientists have developed detailed outlines showing a remarkable correspondence between these two perspectives.

There are also people, however, who think that there are some fundamental disagreements between the Book of Genesis and science. This is also the reason why many secular-minded people do not engage with the book - and even think that the Bible teaches unrealistic stories about creation that had long ago been refuted by science. Some Christians - especially those from traditional communities as well as the Seventh-day-Adventist Church - do in fact believe that the book teaches that the cosmos is only a few thousand years old. But many other Christians disagree with this: they think that the best reading of the book is indeed one that allows for a long period of creation. One of the main concerns of my approach is to answer such questions through a proper consideration of the ancient world in which the book originated and the context in which the author produced it.

On the whole, there are three approaches to the book. The first group follows a "fundamentalist" approach that asserts the literal reading of the text (which its opponents think is excessively literal, neglecting due consideration of the context). The second approach is the "scientific" approach used by Christian scientists that work towards reconciling the book with science (which may lead to neglecting the context of its origin in an ancient world very different from our own). The third approach is that used by Biblical Criticism scholars which may be called a "secular" approach since they often assert that we should study the book without regard for its supposed divine origin (which their opponents think takes an excessive critical stance towards the book). In my approach, I discuss all these views when I engage with the various relevant topics.

How should we navigate between all the rocks of bad interpretation to arrive at an appropriate reading of the book? In my view, we should use good hermeneutical principles developed by the best philosophers of our day (people like Hans-Georg Gadamer; see [1]) while at the same time give serious consideration to the period in which the book originated. I suggest a Sumerian hypothesis according to which the Mesopotamian source material in the first few chapters (called the "ancient history") should be understood as originating in the land of Sumer from which Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, is said to have come. This goes against the view currently accepted in Biblical Criticism circles, namely that the book (for the most part) originated during or after the Babylonian exile - which would mean that we should merely consider the book in literary terms. I assert that the book is much more than that.

Rereading the Book of Genesis

The Book of Genesis is important to Christians because it touches on many issues of central concern to their faith, including divine creation, God's purpose with man, the Fall, the promise of the "seed" (Messiah), the calling of Abraham etc. These are indeed issues that stand central to the whole message of the Bible. For Christians, the story of the Fall brings God's salvation for mankind through the work of Jesus Christ into focus. The critical stance of traditional Christians towards other interpretations is grounded in the fear that these might in some manner undermine good Christian doctrine. They often think that believe in an old age for the cosmos in accordance with the scientific view necessarily implies support for Neo-Darwinistic evolution (which all traditional Christians reject). They also think that such views undermine the teaching of the Fall - which for them is indissolubly linked with a historical Adam and Eve who were created as the very first humans six thousand years ago. They do, however, not consider the possibility that these might be false dichotomies, i.e. that certain other interpretations might be in agreement with science without undermining good teaching.

On the other hand, one often finds that scholars from the Biblical Criticism tradition think that their view is the only scientifically accepted approach to the Bible. Since many of these scholars do not have any concern for good Biblical teaching, they do not have to take these into consideration when studying the Biblical text. In fact, they often think that since they are not motivated by religious concerns, their approach is superior to that used by such Christians - and they absolutely reject the idea that we should in any manner relate the text to current scientific concerns. The problem with this view is that all people, scholars included, both religious and non-religious, have some preferences - there is no such thing as an "objective" perspective, especially insofar as texts like the Bible are concerned. Many of these scholars, therefore, also think in terms of false dichotomies, either we study the Bible "scientifically" or our views are religiously determined.

The only manner in which these problems can be resolved is to understand what good interpretation is. So often, in both traditional Christian and Biblical Criticism circles, the views of the readers are forced onto the text without any real concern for the voice of the author and the tradition from which he/she originated. This goes back to the days of modernism in previous centuries, when philosophers and scientists thought that we can achieve one final and objective view of texts and reality - a view that is not taken seriously today because we now know that there are always various possible interpretations of texts and reality (which does not mean that one supports the postmodernist view, i.e. that all interpretations are in some manner acceptable, which would again be a false dichotomy!).

In traditional circles their interpretation is often considered as "the truth" of the Bible - they do not have a feeling for the fact that there is an enormous gap between present-day readers and those ancient authors, that all humans interpret the Biblical text and that we do not have access to the thoughts of Moses. In Biblical Criticism circles, on the other hand, the scholarly field has been deeply discredited by the modernist approach of earlier days which determined the later development of the discipline [2]. Early scholars thought that they had an "objective" view of the texts which goes beyond the "primitive" views of the authors of those texts. In both cases, the views of readers are forced onto the text!

There are some very basic problems with both these views which are immediately observable to any careful study of the ancient context in which the book originated. The traditional view asserts that the seven days of creation are literal solar days in spite of the fact that the sun, moon and stars were only created on the fourth "day" and served "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" (Gen. 1:14). How the first three solar days were possible without the sun, or how solar "days", as well as "seasons" and "years", came into being only on the fourth day, is only explained with remarkable interpretative gymnastics. The story of Eve being created from Adam's rib is taken in a literal sense, even though other similar stories from that period show that it was a well-known literary motif.

In my view, we may believe the stories (and even take it in a literal sense) insofar as we understand the context in which they originated and were later written down. I argue that we may accept a historical Adam and Eve (even though we can obviously not prove it!), although they might also be regarded as archetypal parents of the human race. Accepting them as historical persons does not mean that they were the very first humans. Traditional questions as to where their sons got wives or where the other people outside the garden (whom Cain feared) came from, are resolved once we view the word 'adam when it is first introduced in Genesis 1, not as referring to the person Adam who is the main character in the garden story but to mankind who was created during the sixth period ("day") of creation.

Without deciding what "creation" means - we read that the "earth" or "waters" produced species (which is not that specific!) - we may accept that humans were created long before the story of the Garden of Eden unfolds. The garden story then tells about later events when Adam and Eve were present in a holy garden, probably on an early "mountain of God". The geographical details given at the beginning of the garden story are in agreement with ancient Sumerian tradition regarding such a mountain - showing that the Biblical tradition is very much part of the ancient world in which it originated.

I furthermore argue that the Fall is already implied from the beginning in the story of creation (words like "chaos" are used; the snake is a fallen creature; the people outside the garden are presented as possible killers) which means that the Fall did not happen through Adam and Eve's disobedience; their fallen human condition was rather "revealed" through their disobedience. Once humans became aware of their fallen condition, the need for salvation arose which is the primary concern of the Biblical message, and which became a reality, as was promised, through the death of Jesus Christ. I show how this reading is in agreement with statements in this regard in the rest of the Bible (especially of St. Paul). It is also in agreement with science which shows that death goes back to the earliest times - long before the time of Adam and Eve about six thousand years ago.

This interpretation means that there is no conflict between the narrative in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis and science - in fact, it aligns, as Christians should expect since they believe that God is the author of both creation and the Scriptures (our understanding of these can therefore not be in conflict; traditional Christians often have a deep distrust in science since they believe that scientists are out to show the Bible wrong but this is a very simplistic way of seeing things). The power of my reading - which does not express our contemporary standpoint but shows a sensitivity for the ancient milieu in which the author produced the work - is that it resolves many other problematic issues, for example, that of the speaking snake and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The Biblical Criticism view has its own problems. Many of these scholars, for example, believe in the sources theory of the Pentateuch (for a critical discussion, see [1,2]) according to which there are two creation stories (Gen. 1:1-2:3; Gen. 2:4-3:24) in which two different names of God (Elohim, Yahweh Elohim) appear, which in their view reflects the different sources incorporated in the book. In this reading, the whole Book of Genesis is cut into many pieces that the author supposedly brought together in one book. The problem is that this view essentially negates the unity of the book as produced by one author. I show that there are better ways to read these passages which are to be preferred, for example, that the two creation stories are in fact a creation and garden story, and that the two names of God reflect the two manifestations of the God El (El-Elyon and El-Shaddai) who are introduced later in the book and who can only be understood in the context of the ancient concept of the council of God (or: the gods).

Biblical Criticism scholars also assert that the book was written late (nowadays: during or after the Babylonian exile). This is how they account for the Mesopotamian material in the book. This immediately implies that the information in the book should not be taken as referring to historical persons and events - in their view these stories were not part of a long tradition in Israelite circles; rather, they were literary products of a later period which have no relation whatsoever to the ancient history of the forefathers of the Israelites. I show that this view is not in accordance with the facts.

The Mesopotamian material in the book shows absolutely no sign of being influenced by developments after the time of Abraham's journey from Sumer (Mesopotamia) which excludes a Neo-Babylonian origin during the Babylonian exile (agreement with the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elis is superfluous)! I show that certain motifs in the early chapters, for example, the view that the seven days of creation are the divine model for the Sabbath (see Gen. 2:3), strongly suggests that this was written when the Sabbath was first introduced in Israelite circles - in ancient Mesopotamia the divine model typically served as basis for the introduction of cult practice. This means that the book might have been written by Moses who is so closely connected with the Mosaic law, which included the Sabbath, as is traditionally accepted. I make similar arguments regarding the first introduction of the Mosaic sacrifices.

In my view, the traditional young earth and the Biblical Criticism views are built on simplistic modernist readings of the text. There are other interpretations possible which involve good hermeneutic (interpretative) practice. In my series on the Book of Genesis, I develop such an alternative which answers many of the questions that are traditionally ascribed to the book - especially to the first part thereof.

The trustworthiness of the Book of Genesis

When the ancient context in which the book originated is carefully considered, one finds that the book gives a remarkably accurate depiction of historical events - even those that happened in the countries from which the Israelite forefathers originated, for example, the stories of Enoch, Nimrod, the Tower of "Babel" etc. If the book is, in fact, a trustworthy account of the early history of Israel (even though it is obviously not history in the sense that we understand the term today), then its remarkable agreement with modern science may imply that the book is more than just another old document - it may in fact be divinely inspired as the Scriptures themselves assert and as such provide reliable answers to the meaning of human existence and the role of God therein, if it is read in a sophisticated manner.

When we consider the trustworthiness of the information in the book - much of which cannot be proven for the simple fact that archaeology is not an empirical science which produces representative samples of historical events (see [3]) - we should ask how that would be possible? In my view, we should take the story of Abraham's journey serious - this would explain how the earlier Sumerian worldview and traditions ended up in the Book of Genesis (not that the Biblical stories were taken from the Sumerian ones; rather I assume that they were delivered from ancient times in the context of Abraham's family). In Biblical Criticism circles, the historicity of Abraham has traditionally been rejected, but new archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. All the main events surrounding Abraham's life are either supported by evidence (the Elamitic incursion towards northern Syria in the correct year under the command of a king with a corresponding name) or we may read the evidence as supporting it (Abraham's journey to Egypt). The correctness of especially the first data makes it impossible to accept that this story is not in some manner grounded in history.

Once the story of Abraham is shown to be trustworthy insofar we are able to confirm it (and the problem with verification is not with the Bible, but with the nature of archaeology [3]), the ground for the Sumerian hypothesis is laid. We can now consider the possibility that the older stories may also reflect historical events since the information regarding them may have come with Abraham's family from Ur in Sumer (ancient Mesopotamia). I show that there is, in fact, a remarkable agreement between the Biblical stories in the "ancient history" (Gen. 2-11) and a viable reconstruction of Sumerian history which take both the cuneiform texts and archaeological data into consideration.

All the important Biblical figures like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Nimrod etc. are also found in Sumerian tradition under similar names - which I read as two traditions going back to the same original events. This obviously does not prove that any of those people lived, but it is surely possible and the Jewish and Christian belief in their historicity is not totally unjustified (for many Christians it is anyhow a matter of belief). Although various possible narratives of ancient Sumerian history may be reconstructed, I show that we have good grounds to do it in such a manner that it agrees with the Biblical narrative.

Conclusion

I, therefore, argue that the Sumerian hypothesis is not only the best possible way to understand the Book of Genesis - it also solves many of the traditional problems that scholars have with the book. It shows that the book was written early by someone (probably Moses) who used source material that was handed down for many generations in patriarchal and Israelite circles. The narrative in the first part of the book agrees remarkably well with a sensible reconstruction of early Sumerian history. Once we use this ancient context in our interpretation of the book, many of the other problems associated with the book, which originated from a modern reading of the book, disappears.

The book gains a very special place, not only as a remarkable document in which issues that concern us today are presented from an ancient standpoint but also in presenting deep insights into the greater picture of our human existence. If the picture presented in the book is indeed trustworthy in the context of that time, and agrees with modern science, a good argument may be made that the book is indeed divinely inspired and that we may believe it when it tells about a creator God and sets the stage for the eventual coming of the Messiah.

[1] Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
[2] A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline 
[3] Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
A critique of archaeology as a science

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com).

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.

Parts of the series on the Book of Genesis that are available:

Part 1: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?

Part 2: Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans?

Part 3: The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?

Part 4: The Serpent of Paradise
Part 5: Reconsidering the Fall

Part 6: The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan
Part 7: Who is Elohim?
Part 8: The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?
Part 9: The Great Flood: Did it really happen?
Part 10: Abraham holds the key

If readers find the essays interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars. 

Die probleem met Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament

Vir die eietydse mens is dit moeilik om die gedeeltes in die Ou Testament te verstaan waar mense op God se bevel onder die banvloek kom en doodgemaak word. Vir ons lyk dit gewoon na Goddelike wreedheid wat op geen manier goed gepraat kan word nie. Hoe is dit moontlik dat God sulke wreedhede kon beveel? Maak dit van Hom 'n wrede en aggressiewe God? Ek toon dat hierdie moeilike sake wel sinvol verduidelik kan word. Ek argumenteer selfs dat daar 'n besondere kontinuïteit tussen die Ou en Nuwe Testamentiese beskouings bestaan ten spyte van sommige populêre uitsprake tot die teendeel.

Eietydse lesers van die Bybel stoei dikwels om die etiese norme van ou Israel te verstaan. Hoe is dit moontlik dat God kon opdrag gee dat mense - mans, vroue en kinders - met die banvloek getref word? Hoe is dit moontlik dat 'n profeet van God soos Elia die priesters van Baal met wie hy verskil het, kon slag? Hoekom is daar soveel wreedheid wat in opdrag van God gepleeg is in die Ou Testament - en hoe is dit moontlik dat dieselfde God wat Homself in Jesus Christus sou openbaar (wat die toonbeeld van Goddelike liefde is), terselfdertyd sulke wrede opdragte aan sy dienaars en sy volk kon gee? Alhoewel hierdie 'n moeilike kwessie is, poog ek in hierdie essay om sinvolle voorstelle op die tafel te plaas.

Wanneer ons die Ou Testament lees, dan is dit belangrik dat ons besef dat dit in 'n antieke wêreld afspeel wat op 'n radikaal ander wyse as ons oor dinge gedink het. Ons moet hulle histories-kulturele verbondenheid in ag neem as ons hul verhale lees. Die wreedheid wat ons in die vroeë periode van Israel se geskiedenis vind, was tipies van die wyer wêreld waarin hulle geleef het. Vandag nog vind ons 'n soortgelyke konteks in sekere afgesonderde dele van die wêreld soos in Afganistan waar stamme 'n besonder wrede benadering tot die lewe volg. Die vraag is egter: Hoe kon dieselfde God wat Christene vandag dien, destyds sulke wrede opdragte gee? Staan God nie buite die mens en sy historiese gebondenheid nie?

Alhoewel God volgens die Bybel buite die skepping staan, is dit terselfdertyd so dat God deur sy Gees deur die profete gepraat het binne die konteks van daardie tyd. Vir hulle was daardie dinge duidelik nie verkeerd op dieselfde wyse as wat ons dit as verkeerd beskou nie. Alhoewel ons mag dink dat ons vanuit ons eietydse posisie hul waardes en dade moet veroordeel, verduidelik dit nog nie hoe hulle daardie waardes as reg kon beskou nie. Die eintlike vraag wat ons moet beantwoord, is dus: Hoe kan ons die etiese waardes van destydse Israel regverdig? En hoe kan die veranderende etiese waardes van die Bybel met 'n onveranderlike God versoen word? Is daar iets soos vaste morele waardes?

Die etiese konteks van ou Israel

Dit is vir ons onmoontlik om ons in die posisie van ou Israel in te dink. Ons is, net soos hulle, onlosmaaklik binne ons eie kultuurraamwerk vasgevang. Dit het filosowe soos Heidegger ons kom leer. Tog kan ons hul kultuurraamwerk bestudeer en dit kan ons help om meer begrip vir hul denkwyse te hê. In hierdie verband is dit belangrik om te besef dat ou Israel die kosmos en hul plek daarbinne totaal anders as ons gesien het. Die konsepte wat hulle hieromtrent gehad het, was deel van die antieke wêreld waarbinne hulle gelewe het.

Wanneer ons die antieke wêreld bestudeer, dan is daar veral een faktor wat 'n prominente rol in hul verstaan van die wêreld gespeel het. Dit is dat hulle voortbestaan voortdurend op die mees basiese, eksistensiële vlak bedreig is. In daardie tyd was die stryd om oorlewing baie meer intensief as vandag in soverre invallende hordes enige dag kon opdaag, plunder en mense om die lewe bring. Dit was 'n wêreld waarin chaos en wanorde die reël was - daar was voortdurende onsekerheid oor basiese voortbestaan in die toekoms. Ons moet die kulturele raamwerk van die antieke Midde Oosterse mens binne hierdie konteks verstaan - dit is die konteks waarbinne die destydse etiese norme nie alleen algemeen aanvaar is nie, maar ook as die enigste sinvolle regulerende beginsels geopereer het.

Binne die konteks van die fundamentele bedreiging van hul wêreld, was die natuurlike reaksie van die antieke mens nie alleen om binne groepsverband skuiling te vind nie, maar ook om die groep se belange bo dié van individue te ag. In hierdie konteks is mense se waarde volgens hul potensiële bydrae tot die voortbestaan van die groep waartoe hulle behoort het bepaal. Dit beteken dat mense primêr volgens hulle utilitêre waarde (usefulness) vir die groep beoordeel is. Mans wat kon veg was oor die algemeen meer werd vir die groep as vrouens wat hoofsaaklik belangrik was om nasate vir die groep te verseker.

Vanweë die voortdurende eksistensiële bedreiginge was individue beperk in die mate waarin hulle onafhanklik van die groep besluite kon neem - daar was 'n streng gesagstruktuur waarin die koning en die oudstes oor die belange van die groep gewaak het. Die rede hiervoor is eenvoudig: individuele besluite kan maklik in stryd wees met die belange van die groep en kan dit selfs ondermyn. Ons vind vandag nog in sekere gebiede waar stamme 'n groot mate van kohesie het (veral in die woestyngebiede van die Midde-Ooste, Noord-Afrika, Afganistan ens.) dat die gesag van die oudstes die hele familielewe bestuur. Ons kan hierdie konteks makliker verstaan as ons dit met ons huidige weermag konteks in verband bring waar gesagstrukture streng is en waarin elkeen se waarde hoofsaaklik op utilitêre gronde bepaal word.

Daar was egter ook 'n ander beginsel wat veral in die raamwerk van families, stamme en volksverband (in soverre volke uit stamme bestaan het) asook in stede geopereer het. Binne die konteks van die familie het familiebande en onderlinge liefde tot 'n sekere mate die utilitêre beginsel oorskadu. In soverre iemand tot 'n familie behoort het, het so iemand 'n menswaardigheid gehad wat hulle nie daarbuite kon hê nie. In die wyer konteks van die eie samelewing is hierdie menswaardigheid formeel in die raamwerk van die etiese wette opgeneem. Om te verseker dat niemand bevoordeel word nie en dat geregtigheid seëvier is sulke wette in die antieke Midde-Ooste rondom die beginsel van 'n oog vir 'n oog en 'n tand vir 'n tand geformuleer (dit was die basis vir 'n regverdige orde in 'n wanordelike wêreld). Sulke wette was in die algemeen nie op diegene buite die groep (en diegene wat in die groep aanvaar is) van toepassing nie behalwe tot die mate waartoe enige onreg volgens dieselfde beginsel van geregtigheid vergeld moes word - buite die groep het utilitêre beginsels oorheers.

Diegene buite die eie groep is net soos diegene binne groepsverband primêr binne hul groepskonteks onderskei. Mense se groepsidentiteit het grotendeels hul menslike identiteit bepaal. Aangesien dit slegs binne iemand se eie groepsverband was dat hulle wesentlike menswaardigheid toegesê is, is hulle buite daardie konteks feitlik uitsluitlik in utilitêre terme gesien - hetsy as 'n bedreiging of as iemand wat op een of ander wyse die groep tot voordeel kon dien. Tot vandag vind ons in tye van oorlog - wanner groepe voel dat hulle op 'n radikale wyse bedreig word - dat die "ander" maklik as 'n groep gekarakteriseer word en dat diegene wat tot hulle behoort of hulle daarby skaar maklik onder suspisie kom en dat daar gewoonlik baie streng teen "verraaiers" opgetree word.

Die verhouding met die goderealm

In die konteks van eksistensiële bedreiging is daar na die gode vir beskerming gekyk. Deur die aanbidding van die gode (en al die kultushandelinge wat daarmee gepaard gaan) kon daar op die beskerming van die gode aanspraak gemaak word. In die raamwerk van die derde/tweede millennium in die antieke Middel-Ooste het families dus tipies sekere familiegode vereer wat na daardie families sou omsien. Ons vind ook dat volke sekere (families van) gode vereer het. As sodanig kan ons van die "sakrale" beginsel praat: almal binne 'n sekere familie of volkskonteks het tot dieselfde heilige orde (godsdienstige kultus) behoort. Aangesien die familiegode as beskermers van families in die raamwerk van eksistensiële bedreiginge opgetree het, is individuele keuse natuurlik ook nie in hierdie verband toegelaat nie.

Volgens die boek Genesis was El-Sjaddai Abraham se familiegod. Die volksgod van Israel was Jahweh, wat telkens die "God van Israel" genoem word. Jahweh is die naam waaronder El-Sjaddai Homself volgens die Pentateug aan Moses geopenbaar het (sien Ex. 6:2). Volgens die Mosaïse verbond sou Israel Hom vereer en sou Hy na hulle omsien. As volksgod word sy verhouding met die volk in terme van beide liefde en onderwerping aan sy gesag beskryf (die verhouding tot God as koning oor Israel is gewoon as 'n verlenging van die familieverhoudinge beskou waarbinne die koning en oudstes gesag uitgeoefen het); Hy is ook die een wat teenoor hul vyande hul voortbestaan sou verseker.

Wat die antieke mens (ou Israel) se verhouding met die gode (God) betref, het hulle ook nie die groter kosmos soos ons gesien nie. Hulle het 'n radikaal ander konsep van die kosmos gehad wat ek nie hier in enige diepte kan bespreek nie. Wat wel vir ons huidige bespreking belangrik is, is dat hulle die menswêreld in die wyer raamwerk van die godewêreld geplaas het. Die rede hiervoor is dat die menslike gees (genus) net soveel as deel van die geesteswêreld (godewêreld) beskou is as ander geeste en gode - wat ten nouste in die daaglikse familielewe van die antieke mens ingeweef was. Die dood het nie die menslike bestaan in enige finale sin afgebaken soos ons vandag daaroor dink nie - die mens het terselfdertyd tot die geestesrealm behoort. Die menslike bestaan het gewoon in 'n ander vorm na die dood voortgegaan. In soverre sekere volke sekere gode aanbid het, het hulle in lewe en dood tot die ryksgebied van daardie gode behoort. Die gesag wat die gode oor die mense uitgeoefen het, het dus verby hierdie wêreld tot die groter raamwerk van die gode gestrek.

Vanuit die Ou Testamentiese perspektief staan beide Israel en hul vyande uiteindelik onder God se gesag wat as die koning oor die kosmos beskou is - bo al die ander gode. God se gesag strek verder as die aardse bestaan waarbinne etiese wette die eie samelewing reguleer - alle mense en gode staan uiteindelik onder God se gesag of sal hulle uiteindelik daaraan moet onderwerp (vgl. Ps. 82). As sodanig kon God sy gesag soewerein oor die hele kosmos uitoefen - en was Hy uiteindelik die een wat die mensdom op morele gronde sou oordeel. As sodanig is alle mense aan die basiese morele wette wat God in die kosmos ingestel het onderwerpe (alhoewel nie spesifiek aan die Mosaïse wet nie) - wette wat uiteindelik deur God in alle mense se gewete ingegee is (sien Paulus se argument hieromtrent in Romeine 1:18-2:16).

In hierdie verband is dit God se soewereine reg as heerser oor die kosmos om mense volgens hul dade aan die hand van sy morele wette te oordeel (die gedagte dat mense uiteindelik vir hul dade geoordeel word is regoor die antieke Midde Ooste aanvaar [1]). Binne hierdie konteks maak dit geen verskil of God sy oordeel binne hierdie wêreld of in die hiernamaals uitvoer nie. Voorts kon God besluit wat die tydstip is waarop Hy sy oordeel uitvoer - en Hy kon dit doen in die konteks waarin Hy sy volk se oorlewing en voortbestaan verseker (soos toe Hy die inwoners van Kanaan in hul hand oorgegee het).

Ons kan nou die probleem van Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament in hierdie konteks probeer verstaan. In alle gevalle waar ons vind dat volke onder die banvloek gekom het, word dit duidelik uitgespel dat hulle onder God se oordeel gestaan het wat op die uitoefening van 'n bevel in die konteks van Goddelike regspraak verstaan moet word. In die geval van die nasies van Kanaan word daar dikwels op hul sondige (gruwelike) praktyke gewys en in die geval van die Amalekiete het dit met hul handelinge tydens die uittog te doen. Vanuit die profetiese perspektief het die "maat van hul sondes" vol geraak (sien Gen. 15:16) en het die tyd van God se oordeel vir hulle aangebreek. Selfs in die geval waar Elia die Baalpriesters geslag het moet dit in hierdie terme verstaan word. Baie later, toe Nebukadnesar Jerusalem ingeneem en hy verskeie onder die Israelitiese adel en hul kinders "geslag" het, is dit ook in terme van God se oordeel verstaan omdat hulle die praktyke van die volke van Kanaan gevolg het (2 Kon. 17: 1-23; 21:1-12; 25:7).

Ons vind dus dat vyandige volke nie maar willekeurig uitgewis is nie. God se oordeel word altyd in die raamwerk van sy regverdigheid geplaas - binne God se raad was daar 'n regverdige verhoor wat (in die gevalle onder bespreking) in die raamwerk van die banvloek voltrek is. Alhoewel sy oordeel deur natuurrampe kon plaasvind (dink aan Sodom en Gomorra), kon dit ook deur oorlog (in die voltrekking van die banvloek) en selfs deur individue soos Elia volvoer word. As sodanig is dit belangrik om daarop te let dat die volvoering van God se oordeel in hierdie wêreld verby hierdie aardse bestaan strek - dit het primêr met God se gesag oor die totale kosmos te doen. Diegene wat deur die banvloek sterf staan onder God se oordeel soos wat alle mense onder God se (regverdige) oordeel staan na die dood.

Tog bly dit 'n vraag waarom almal, vrouens en kinders ingesluit, deur die banvloek getref is. Ons kan dit duidelik nie losmaak van die antieke denke waarvolgens vyande as 'n groep onder dieselfde kam geskeer is nie. Ons kan dit net verstaan in die konteks van die bedreiginge van die tyd waarin daardie mens gelewe het - enige iemand wat tot die vyande behoort kon dalk meewerk om die identiteit en voortbestaan van die groep te bedreig. Dit is ook die rede wat in die Ou Testament aangevoer word (vgl. Deut. 7). Die rede waarom almal onder die banvloek gekom het, is dat die sterk kultuurgebondenheid van daardie tyd maklik daartoe kon lei dat gespaardes uit die ander volke (kinders ingeslote) mettertyd kon poog om wraak te neem of in die geheim ander gode sou aanbid. Laasgenoemde het die fundamentele verbondsverhouding tussen God en Israel bedreig en as sodanig dus ook God se beskerming van sy volk wat aan daardie terme onderworpe was.

As sodanig is hierdie bedreiging as 'n eksistensiële bedreiging vir Israel se voortbestaan as volk van God beskou - en 'n mens kan dink dat dat dit selfs daartoe sou kon lei as die beginsel van die banvloek nie onder sekere omstandighede toegepas is nie. Heelwat later, in die tyd van Elia en Elisa, is die familielyn van Dawid byvoorbeeld bykans uitgewis (vgl. 2 Kon. 11 ens.). Sonder die voortbestaan van Israel as volk van God in die raamwerk van die Mosaïse verbond, en van die familielyn van Dawid, sou God se beloftes nie waar word nie en sou die Messias nie gebore word nie.  

In hierdie konteks kan ons sien dat die antieke mens - ou Israel ingeslote - 'n sekere vorm van utilitaristiese etiek toegepas het waarvolgens etiese beginsels deur die "groter belang" (greater good) bepaal is. Vandag nog gebeur dit in die raamwerk van etiese dilemmas dat die lewens van mense ter wille van die groter belang opgeoffer word. So word individue ter wille van die voortbestaan en voorspoed van die groter groep prysgegee. Tot vandag staan die beginsels van universele morele waardes (met alle mense se menswaardigheid as basis; filosofies begrond op Emmanuel Kant se morele filosofie) en die utilitaristiese beginsels waarvolgens sommige persone soms vir die "groter belang" opgeoffer word (bv. in oorloë, slagoffers van alle vorme van land-, see- en lugverkeer ens.; filosofies begrond op Jeremy Bentham en John Stuart Mill se morele filosofie) in konflik met mekaar. Alhoewel sulke besluite gewoonlik nie in terme van die veroordeling van sulke persone in regsterme gemaak word nie, is dit wel hoe die banvloek in ou Israel verstaan is. 

Die Nuwe Testamentiese bedeling

Die etiese waardes van die Ou Testament het in die Nuwe Testament subtiele veranderinge ondergaan. Alhoewel daar 'n duidelike kontinuïteit is tussen die Ou en Nuwe Testamentiese wêrelde in soverre beide ou Israel en die vroeë kerk uit die Israelitiese tradisie gegroei het, is daar tog 'n baie belangrike klemverskuiwing. Met Jesus Christus het die ou beginsels verander. Ons kan nou kyk hoe dinge verander het. Dit in sigself sal ook help om die ou Israelse konteks beter te verstaan.

Die eerste belangrike verskuiwing in denke is dat God die hele wêreld in sy genade insluit. Alhoewel proseliete al vroeg in ou Israel aanvaar is (dink aan Ragel in Jerigo) en van die latere profete hul boodskap tot die omringende volke gerig het, is dit eers met die Nuwe Testament dat die gedagte dat God graag mense van alle nasies by sy koninkryk wil insluit, werklik begin veld wen het. Waar die Ou Testament primêr van God as die "God van Israel" praat wat hom met Israel as volk bemoei, verbreed die Nuwe Testament die fokus sodat God nou die God van die gelowiges uit alle nasies word. Nou vind ons dat alle mense tot die verbondsverhouding met God toegelaat kan word. Een van die belangrikste uitsprake in hierdie verband is seker die bekende Johannes 3:16: "Want so lief het God die wêreld gehad, dat Hy sy eniggebore Seun gegee het, sodat elkeen wat in Hom glo, nie verlore mag gaan nie, maar die ewige lewe kan hê".

Met hierdie verbreding van God se verbondsbedeling, kom daar ook 'n radikale verandering rakende die sakrale beginsel. Waar die oudstes van die familie en die volk voorheen die besluite namens individue geneem het, vind ons dat die individu nou tot sy eie besluit rakende die aanbidding van God opgeroep word. Skielik moet die individu self kies of hy/sy Jesus Christus as Messias en Verlosser wil aanvaar. Nou kom daar 'n stryd binne die konteks van families - volgens Jesus sal families ten diepste oor Hom verdeeld raak (Matt. 10:34-37). Wat die "ander" betref, diegene wat vroeër as vyande hanteer is: nou vind ons dat die volgelinge van Jesus opgeroep word om hul vyande lief te hê (vgl. die gelykenis van die barmhartige Samaritaan, i.e. binne en buite volksverband). Diegene wat op 'n menslike vlak as vyande gereken mag word, is nie noodwendig vyande van God nie.

Die klem op individuele keuse het belangrike implikasies. Individue ontvang 'n sekere waardigheid (dignity) wat nie voorheen as sodanig erken is nie. Volgens die Nuwe Testament is die individu so belangrik dat Jesus Christus vir hulle kom sterf het. Die individu is 'n persoon wat vir God belangrik is: daarom moet ons hulle ook so beskou. Voorts beteken dit dat daar nie gewoon op die groep en hul belange gefokus word nie; individuele omstandighede moet in ag geneem word. In die Nuwe Testament word die wet (die reëls wat die samelewing orden) met genade gekomplimenteer soos ons lees: "die wet is deur Moses gegee; die genade en die waarheid het deur Jesus Christus gekom" (Joh. 1:17). Wanneer die individu se omstandighede in ag geneem word, dan bring ons eie menslike gebreke en swakhede God se genade in fokus (Heb. 4:15, 16).

Die vraag omtrent wie aan God se koninkryk behoort raak nou baie meer kompleks. Waar dit in ou Israel relatief eenvoudig was omdat volke in hul geheel sekere gode aanbid het, is dit in die kerkera allermins die geval: elke individu is teenoor God verantwoordelik vir sy/haar lewe (in die Ou Testament het hierdie beginsel ook ten opsigte van God se uiteindelike oordeel oor die kosmos gegeld). Nou is die mens - selfs die wat waarlik met God wandel - ook aan gebreke en swakhede onderworpe. Die kwessie van die uitvoering van God se oordele raak baie meer kompleks; omdat ons menslike oordeel beperk is kan die mens nie meer namens God sy oordeel uitoefen nie. God alleen kan regverdig oordeel. In soverre die latere Rooms Katolieke Kerk weer die sakrale konsep wou terug bring en namens God wou oordeel, het hulle inderdaad onregverdig opgetree - in die Nuwe Testamentiese bedeling is daar nie meer plek vir Ou Testamentiese beginsels nie!

Ons kan dus sê dat die kultuurraamwerk van Israel in die Nuwe Testamentiese tyd sodanig verander het (veral omdat die politieke milieu baie meer stabiel geraak het) dat 'n nuwe stel etiese reëls in gebruik kon kom. Hiervolgens word alle individue as sodanig belangrik geag (as iemand met menslike waardigheid (dignity)), wie se eiesoortige omstandighede in ag geneem moet word. Mense kan nie meer namens God sy oordele uitvoer nie - Christene moet selfs hul vyande liefhê. Die groep wat binne God se verbond ingesluit word verbreed om individue uit alle volke en tale in te sluit. Op hierdie wyse raak die etiese waardes gebaseer op individuele menswaardigheid wat vroeër binne die volksraamwerk van ou Israel gegeld het, nou ook op 'n sekere wyse op alle mense van toepassing. Alhoewel die Mosaïse wet primêr met uiterlike handelinge en verhoudings te doen het, kon die beginsels wat dit onderlê in een fundamentele morele beginsel opgesom word wat alle mense geld: liefde tot God en ander mense.

Ons kan nou vra: as mense nie God se oordele regverdig kan uitvoer nie (vanweë hul eie swakhede en foute), hoe kan die oordeel wat God deur mense in die Ou Testament uitgevoer het as regverdig beskou word? Alhoewel dit in die konteks van daardie tyd waarin individue nie binne groepsverband onderskei is in soverre vyande betref nie, en dit sekerlik in daardie konteks die enigste sinvolle regulerende etiese beginsel was (i.e. gebaseer op utilitêre beginsels), mag dit tog beteken dat dit binne die individuele beoordeling van 'n persoon se dade onregverdig kon wees. In hierdie verband dink ek dat Paulus se verwysing na die "tye van onkunde" hier van toepassing is alhoewel hy die term vir die periode van heidense onkunde gebruik (Hand. 17:30). Selfs Israel was toe nog vanweë hul kulturele gebondenheid in 'n periode van onkunde (alhoewel hulle gedink het dat hul etiese beginsels regverdig was). As sodanig sal God sekerlik alle individue uiteindelik op hul eie terme oordeel volgens die beginsels wat Hy in die Nuwe Testament geopenbaar het (na my mening sal kinders wat nie toerekeningsvatbaar is nie, byvoorbeeld nie onregverdig veroordeel word nie).

Morele waardes: is dit relatiewe waardes?

Hoe moet ons nou oor die Christelike morele waardes dink? Is dit relatiewe waardes? Om hierdie vraag te beantwoord kan ons na die verband tussen die Mosaïse wet en die wet van Christus (vgl. 1 Kor. 9:21 ens.) in die Nuwe Testament  kyk. Die Mosaïse wet is op kliptafels gegee. Alhoewel dit die "woorde van God" bevat het, was dit tog onvolmaak in soverre die materialisering daarvan op kliptafels dit tot 'n aardse konteks gereduseer het. Die feit dat Moses daardie tafels stukkend gegooi het is 'n kragtige uitbeelding van die onvolmaaktheid van daardie wet. Dit is ook hoe Paulus dit in die Nuwe Testament verstaan (sien 2 Kor. 3). In die Nuwe Testament word God se wet deur sy Gees op die tafels van gelowiges se harte geskryf en dit kan opgesom word met die woorde "Goddelike liefde". Hierdie wet is volmaak want dit is die essensie van God se Gees wat in ons woon. Alhoewel dit as sodanig buite enige kulturele konteks staan, bring ons uitlewing daarvan dit altyd weer binne so 'n konteks. Alle pogings om dit binne 'n sekere praktiese konteks uit te werk vind terselfdertyd binne 'n kulturele konteks plaas.

Ons kan sê dat presies dieselfde geld rakende God se woorde aan die profete. Dit is woorde van God wat deur mense uitgespreek is in die kulturele konteks waarin hulle gelewe het. Binne hulle konteks is God se woorde inderdaad regverdig. Daar was geen ander manier waarop God Homself op 'n sinvolle wyse aan hulle kon openbaar nie - omdat hulle kultuurgebonde was (net soos ons vandag) kon hul etiese waardes (volgens utilitêre beginsels) nie anders beslag kry as in daardie konteks nie. As ons dit egter buite daardie konteks in die raamwerk van die Nuwe Testamentiese of ons kontemporêre waardesisteem beoordeel, lyk dit onregverdig. Dit is omdat die maatstaf van regverdigheid (as uitdrukking van God se geregtigheid) volgens konteks verander. Alhoewel dieselfde morele beginsels geld, verander die konteks van toepassing, i.e. etiese waardes is kultuurgebonde [2]. In hierdie verband praat teoloë van die progressiewe openbaring van God - dit was eers in Christus Jesus dat God Homself volkome geopenbaar het.

Slot

Die kwessie van sogenaamde Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament is nie maklik om te verstaan nie - veral omdat ons in 'n totaal ander kultuurkonteks lewe waarin hul etiese norme glad nie vir ons sin maak nie. Op dieselfde wyse sou ons etiese norme glad nie vir die mense van daardie tyd sin maak nie - hul wêreldbeskouing was totaal anders as ons sin.

In hul wêreldbeskouing is daar 'n duidelike en definitiewe onderskeid tussen die volk Israel (en diegene wat hulle by haar geskaar het) en die ander volke in soverre God in 'n verbondsverhouding met Israel gestaan het. In die raamwerk van daardie tyd was dit algemeen dat mense 'n fundamentele onderskeid tussen hul eie samelewing en die "ander" getref het. Aan die ander kant was daar weinig onderskeid tussen die menslike en goderealms - die goderealm het binne die menslike sfeer gestalte gekry. Wanneer God sy oordeel (deur mense) op andere voltrek, staan dit op 'n sekere wyse op dieselfde basis as dié waarin Hy sy oordeel na die dood oor mense asook oor gode volbring.

Ons kan daardie etiese norme beter verstaan as ons begryp hoe daardie antieke wêreldbeskouing in die Nuwe Testamentiese konteks aangepas is. Nou is die konsep van God se verbond aansienlik verbreed - waar dit voorheen op die volk Israel gefokus was, raak dit nou 'n wêreldwye konsep wat persone uit alle volke en tale insluit. Die sakrale konsep maak plek vir individuele keuse. In hierdie raamwerk raak dit vir mense onmoontlik om God se oordeel uit te voer - alle mense het foute en swakhede en dit word in die feilbaarheid van menslike oordeel gereflekteer.

Ons kan nou verstaan dat God se geregtigheid binne elke kultuurkonteks op 'n ander wyse as regverdig beskou kan word. Alhoewel God se morele wet ewig en onveranderd is, is die etiese manifestasie daarvan altyd kultuurgebonde. Wanneer ons God vir "wreedhede" in die antieke tyd wil verkwalik, dan verstaan ons nie die basiese beginsel rakende ons eie lewe nie - ons etiese waardes maak net sin in die konteks van ons eie wêreldbeskouing. Dit is juis die feit dat ons van sulke dinge in die Bybel lees, wat bevestig dat die Bybel 'n betroubare verhaal bevat wat binne 'n antieke konteks afgespeel het. As dit nie so was nie sou niemand die Bybelse verhale geloofwaardig gevind het nie!

[1] Shushan, Gregory. 2009. Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations. Londen: Continuum.
[2] Ons kan agter al tien gebooie sulke morele beginsels onderskei wat as die gronde vir beide die Mosaïse Wet en die wet van Christus dien. Neem die Sabbat as voorbeeld. In die konteks van Israel as volk het die beginsel van rus binne die uiterlike rus van 'n Sabbatdag beslag gekry. In die konteks van die Nuwe Testament kry dit primêr beslag binne die konteks van gelowiges se innerlike rus (vgl. Heb. 4).


Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Wrong choices

Choices bring us into a web of relations and circumstances which may be either loving or eventually leave us with a deep feeling of hopelessness. Since we never have complete data for choices, we may ask: what should guide our most important choices? And especially: What should guide us in deciding our belief systems? I give my view from a Christian perspective.

We all make choices - all the time. Each day we have to make choices. Some choices are more important than others and wise people spend time thinking about the outcome of their choices. I am often amazed by the fact that we have to make so many important decisions so early in life when we know so little about life itself. Most of us make decisions about our future occupation and our partners with which we want to share our lives while we are rather young. Often we later regret those decisions. Although many things in life are outside our control, one can say that eventually our whole life comes down to one word - decisions.

To make decisions we need data. All sorts of data. Once we think that we have weighed all the pros and cons, and have taken all aspects into consideration, we eventually come to a decision. The decision is the outcome of a long process of thinking (and for some - praying) in which we consider all the available data. The information that we process does not merely concern physical facts; it also includes the background data that forms our belief systems. We have been brought up in a certain kind of family, studied at a certain kind of school or university, enjoyed listening to certain persons, reading certain books, watching certain programs on TV or clips on the internet and in general engaged with our world through all kinds of life experiences.

The main problem with all choices is that we never have complete data. We do not know how things will evolve in future. We do not even have all the data regarding our situation at the time when we make our choices. This is why Christians do not trust themselves in this regard but pray that God would lead them - maybe that God would reveal his will through their reading of the Bible. The wise among us have learned not to force decisions but to carefully consider the flow of events. A closed door is closed for a reason. That is why people often say that they go with their "gut feeling". Christians may ask themselves whether they have real inner peace about something, whether the circumstances align and whether in their reading of God's Word confirm these beacons.

In our day we are exposed to many different points of view - different ethical views and different worldviews. We hear the arguments for other lifestyles and religions. The mainstream media often present alternative views not merely as equally acceptable but as something to actively explore. And many people explore this plurality of choice. They seriously consider alternative belief systems than those of their parents and the community from which they originate. In our day it seems very much "in" to make daring decisions. In this view, life is considered as disposable - we should experiment and "follow our heart". The journey is important - not the destiny.

This sounds nice on the ear. Since we do not have complete knowledge about things, it seems reasonable to think that we should explore and see for ourselves. Often we are not satisfied with our present situation or we want to explore alternatives because we do not feel that our present situation satisfies our deep desires. The problem, however, is that exploring ethical and spiritual matters involve us as humans on the deepest level - it is not comparable with exploring our material world. So often the high expectations and intense feelings of exploration eventually make way for a different conclusion, namely that one has become entangled in an unsatisfactory web of relations which has more in common with a prison than a resort. One should not exchange one prison for another!

Major decisions in this regard are always made after many smaller and less obvious decisions concerning the kind of influences that we engage with. Sometimes it is not so much that people regret making certain decisions; it is, rather, that they experience the outcome of allowing decisions to be made for them in that they merely followed their desires and even lusts. Going with the stream of popular opinion is surely not a guarantee that the outcome would be satisfactory. Once people become ensnared in unsatisfactory webs of entanglement - often the eventual outcome of their decisions - they might lose hope. In their deepest essence, they might feel that the journey has become so unpleasant (satisfying lusts might eventually lead to the acknowledgement that this is an empty pursuit with no real joy in sight) that it is not worth proceeding. On the other hand, when one experiences a deep sense of fulfilment in life and has hope for the life to come, one might overcome a lot of pain and sorrows with the end in mind.

There is another aspect to decision-making. This is trust. Often people make decisions not because they think that they have considered all the data but rather because they trust the persons involved in their decisions. Since we can never have a complete set of data, we may accept that we can never make the perfect decision. But most decisions eventually involve other persons. These involve the person whom I marry, the persons with whom I spend time or hang out with and as well as those with whom I must work.

Decisions involve building a web of such relationships. When we make choices, we decide for or against certain relationships and circumstances. One may make choices in line with your desires and lusts and find oneself embedded in a web of superficial and untrustworthy relationships. Or one may explore life to the fullest and at the same time experience the love and guidance of those who surround you. Such decisions may lead to loving relationships and inner fulfilment that lies on a deeper level than the mere excitement of trying something new.

In the Christian view, this also involves a loving relationship with God through his Spirit that dwells in us. True Christians experience the peace that God brings into their lives and this motivates them to make decisions which would not harm that relationship. They take care to stay within the boundaries of this loving relationship. As such Christians acknowledge that as humans they may make wrong choices; that is why they trust God to lead them. They believe that God knows the future and that he would lead them even though this may involve situations of pain and loss. They believe that only God gives true satisfaction in this life and also promises a future life with him.

Why would people make a choice to accept Jesus in their lives? Why would they allow him to come through his Spirit into their lives and start this spiritual relationship? On the other hand, why would people turn away from the Christian life? It all comes down to trust. If people see the love of Jesus in the lives of Christians they are drawn to also experience it. If people experience that Christians are superficial, arrogant and judgmental, they turn away to explore other possibilities. Many people who have turned to other lifestyles and even to other worldviews have been hurt by Christians.

The most important command that Jesus gives to his church is that they should love each other. So often Christians are not so much committed to Jesus as to some doctrine or principle. They think that their view of Scripture is the only Truth. In fact, there are often various possible views and interpretations of Biblical passages that adhere to good Christian doctrine. Even when we stand up for Christian values, we should do so with humbleness and respect for those holding alternative views. We should stand firm but without being aggressive and arrogant. If we as Christians want to bring people to Jesus Christ, we should live his love. We should demonstrate the love of Jesus in our daily lives. Those who experience such loving relationships would also be willing to trust such Christians and eventually also to entrust their lives to Jesus Himself.

The most important choice that I ever made was to allow Jesus into my life. For 36 years now, I have enjoyed his love, peace and joy in my life. Every day I have the deeply satisfying experience of his presence in my life. Although I surely walk in faith, nothing can be compared with the inner peace that God gives. I am always thankful to him for calling me, for appearing at the door of my life. For presenting me with the gift of salvation. I can only hope that readers who have not yet done so, will also give God a chance in their lives; that they may share the experience of true Godly and Christian love.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Read also
Meeting God
God hoor
Die profeet
The Power of God
Something or Someone is missing? (Dr. Francois Carr)
Revival is of the Lord (Arjan Baan)
A message for the church
Om God te glo