MOTIVES (NAKED TRUTH)
ABSTRACT
Newton’s first law states that “every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.” And then, his third law states that for every action or force in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To expound this law for easy understanding of the most lay of men, this brief explanation was offered: “if object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. In other words, forces result from interactions.” The way of the human species—by divine ordination—is to interact. It is famously said that “no man is an island.” For that reason, after God formed diverse living creatures and brought them to Adam for naming—and was very impressed by Adam’s performance—He couldn’t help noticing that, unlike the living creatures, Adam had no one to interact with. That observation gave rise to the famous scripture: “…it is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” As a consequence, Eve came into the picture, her arrival duly acknowledged thus by Adam: “this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” Going by the series of events that ensued from Genesis 1:3 when God said “let there be light—to Genesis 2:18 when God said “it is not good that man should be alone;” hence making him a helper in the person of Eve, the motives upon which God undertook those courses of actions were not just excellent…they were magnificently resplendent, with consummate purity, clean and unalloyed.
Adam, upon saddling himself with the superb purpose of naming those creatures, was thoroughly apolitical in his discharging of that responsibility, which is why there’s been no identity crises in the animal kingdom from the beginning of time until this very moment. Eve also came on board, and, to assume justly, fell in line with the purpose for which she was made, commendably being a help meet to Adam…until a third party showed up on the scene, uninvited. His name was Satan, the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil. He still goes by that name today, even evermore. Employing the devilish subtlety which holds him in infamy, he beguiled the woman with the motive of switching places with her and her husband. The aim was to draw her in with goodly words, create a temptation that she was sure not to resist, and give her space to fall into it. Quite lamentably, she did…not just her, but her husband as well. It took another Adam, the man— Jesus—with the purest of motives, to right every wrong that was implemented by the serpent…no thanks to the sin of disobedience which had taken its toll on the first couple in the history of the world. Life continued…and from generation to generation, the world keeps revolving, evolving and being sustained by the exploits of mankind—as inspired by a mix of assorted motives which make for the black-and-white state of affairs in the universe today. Motives have been the doing of many excellences in our world today. And you know what else? Motives have also been the doing of numerous evils…as shall be accounted in this literary composition.
-----
INTRODUCTION
All through history, there are unending accounts of ventures that start out under the most promising of circumstances—only to end up in the worst of status quos. One could indicate that one of such ventures was the creation of earth. Upon completion of creation, the bible accounts that God saw everything He had made and remarked that; indeed, it was very good. But if that be the case, how come about the relentless ugliness that taints and keeps tainting the earth determinedly? God’s motives for creating the earth were beyond pure. But then there was Adam and Eve Whom God conscripted into earthly service to start off by tending to the Garden of Eden and possibly extend their footprint beyond the garden in the course of time, after having been vetted and esteemed worthy of expansion. The couple took their eyes off the big picture by entertaining a foul motive that robbed them of all of God’s goodness which was to be the modus operandi of their existence. The instruction was simple and generous: “of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” However, having learnt from an uninvited guest about the supposed vantage that flouting that order would afford them, they didn’t think twice before daring to dethrone their monarch in an attempt to assume his throne.
That didn’t work out well for them, as is common knowledge. What was supposed to be a supreme advantage to the duo—turned out being their most pitiable impediment. First, they lost the garden. And then they were subjected to a life of hard labor under the most stringent of conditions. To the woman God said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to the man, God said: “because you have heeded the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘you shall not eat of it’: cursed is the ground for your sake. In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken…for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” The serpent also had its share of woes pronounced on him. That wouldn’t be expected to really matter, given that it was already a damned being. All the same, the woe pronounced on the serpent put it in a position where it will have to be in perpetual enmity with the woman…while its seed likewise remains in perpetual enmity with the woman’s seed. Not that the serpent was ever interested in befriending the woman or have its seed befriend the woman’s seed. It knew what it wanted from the start, and that was to rob man of his place in God, take over everything God had put in man’s charge, and make a downright, absolute mess of them!
It was man who failed to recognize the wolf that had come to them in sheep’s clothing. It was man who daftly entertained an obvious uninvited guest into God’s sphere and went ahead to dottily esteem its strange counsel over God’s Word—due to the unhealthy motive the serpent had successfully introduced into their hearts. So, after God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils for him to become a living being, he really wanted his eyes opened so he can become like God? And after God caused a deep sleep to fall on man, took one of his ribs and made into woman, brought her to him so she can be a help meet for him, all she did at some point was to covet a fruit that is desirable to make one wise so she’d eat and become like God, knowing good and evil?
No wonder God regretted creating man. One would have thought that—after such terrible ordeal which led to an irredeemable loss (if not for the love of God and sacrifice of Christ), Adam and Eve would have endeavored to see to it that a repeat of such idiocy never again ensued. But it did…not too far down the line, as their very first offspring took it to a whole other level. The couple only wanted to be like God. But Cain wanted God out of the picture completely. He considered God a nuisance that needed to be gotten rid of. So he slayed his brother, Abel, the one fellow who seemed to have the monopoly of invoking God’s presence, unlike him. Therefore, he stirred God’s wrath and got banished……with pleasure.
-----
NAKEDNESS
Coming to the realization of the fact that they were naked—was only the beginning of an eye-opener that would make for the shame of Adam and Eve, and indeed all of humanity. Not only did they sow fig leaves to make coverings for their nakedness, they also couldn’t stand the presence of their own creator, who, before now, was in the habit of habitually fellowshipping with them. Cain took after his parents so perfectly. He also could not stand God’s presence at some point; and happily welcomed a life of exile. He even beckoned on God to bolster him with long life so he would have an extended swell-time playing vagabond in the earth. Guess what? He built a nation and threw open citizenry to fellows from all nooks and crannies of the earth—whose ancestries remain unaccounted for…till date. Meanwhile, Abel was dead and gone…the only account left of him being that his blood cries out for vengeance. As if that wasn’t a terrible-enough fate for such a pure soul, our merciful Savior, Christ the Lord, had His own blood spilled for the remission of humanity’s sin, and from thence onward, His blood speaks better things than the blood of Abel, totally writing off the vengeful cries of Abel’s blood. Cain lived on, founded a city that’s been referenced by modern preachers to have been the root of Babylon the great, that great city, accounted of—in Revelation 18:2 as having at some point fallen and become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! Logically questioning, could those demons and foul spirits and unclean/hated birds have been the entities that constituted citizenry in the city Cain built and named after his son, Enoch? Just think about it.
Cain may have invested lots of time and energy into building Enoch—as well as effect a system that had it crisscross generations from Genesis to Revelation. But God’s judgment came on it in an instant, and in an hour, it fell to ruins. Of that godforsaken city and its momentary destruction, John the beloved accounts thus in Revelation 18:3-10: “for all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury. And I heard another voice from heaven saying, come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.' Therefore, her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her. The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.” A soothing recompense…at long last!
Be that as it may, the most fascinating thing about Babylon the great—would not be her fornication with diverse earthly kings, or the earthly merchants who became rich through the abundance of her luxury, or her irreverent boastfulness, or even the variety of assorted commodities she transacted. It would be a peculiar merchandise she trafficked, reflected in the last words of Revelation 18:13 “…and bodies and souls of men.” Bodies and souls of men? Really? And it’s Cain who started all these? After murdering his righteous brother? Wasn’t this same Cain the great-great-grand father of the first polygamous man in the history of mankind? Didn’t the polygamous man, Lamech by name, having taken excellently after Cain, killed a man for merely wounding him, as well as a young man for merely hurting him? Hadn’t he in confidence confided in his wives about those atrocities, admitting to them about having drawn inspiration from Cain to perform those deeds? In Genesis 4:24, he bragged: “if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” Only God knows how much further he went on with the mayhems…no thanks to the malevolent foundation that had been laid by Cain. The progression of humanity turned out the exact opposite of God’s motive for creation, such that God lamented in Genesis 6:5-6 which says: “then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” God was very grieved.
Imagine that the most-high God got grieved over the structures erected by the descendants of Cain upon the foundation he had laid. Not just Cain and his descendants this time…but mankind in general, as seen in Genesis 6:1-2 which accounts that “…it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.” Wasn’t this why God avowed that His Spirit shall not strive with man forever because man is indeed flesh; and that man’s days shall be one hundred and twenty years? Wasn’t it on account of those unhallowed union that giants came to be on earth, resulting from the seeds of those union? Didn’t those seeds come to be esteemed as the mighty men of old/men of renown whose escapades drew God’s attention to a point where He saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually? The Lord God couldn’t help being sorry that He had made man on the earth. He couldn’t help being grieved in His heart over what was supposed to be His most excellent creation…and deemed it overly fit to conscript the next righteous man after Enoch (not Cain’s son but the Enoch who walked in habitual fellowship with God and didn’t see death because God took him home) to institute a doom that would wipe out sinful humanity. That man was Noah, and, as the story has it, was—alongside his family—the only survivor of the flood that cleansed the earth.
-----
TRUTH
Again, the motive behind God’s conscription of Noah to institute that doom—was not just to wipe out sinful humanity; but to take another shot at establishing Eden—spearheaded by the survivors, who, by all standards, qualified as reliable sources from whence the next phase of humanity could emanate. Accordingly, the next phase of humanity emanated from them—in adherence to a similitude of the charge that was given to Adam and Eve, posited thus in Genesis 9:7: “and as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it.” Most impressively, Noah started out by shouldering that responsibility very well; like Adam and Eve in the beginning. In Genesis 9:20 it is written that “…Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.” But this moral excellence was quickly succeeded by a vice that gave rise to moral weaknesses and decadence which reverted the earth to its previous state…and even worse. It took Adam and Eve an interval of one chapter (of the bible) to fall from grace. It was in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22 that God formed Adam and Eve respectively. It wasn’t until Genesis 3:6 that the couple consumed the forbidden fruit. But it took Noah an interval of just one verse to fall woefully from grace despite his being instrumental to the wiping out of fellows who were—in contrast to him—alienated from grace. In Genesis 9:20 “…Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.” And in Genesis 9:21 he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. Just as modern preachers have made reference to Cain’s godless city to be the root of Babylon the great, Noah has likewise been referenced as being the inventor of alcohol, as the first mention of alcohol in scriptures is in Genesis 9:21 where Noah drank and was drunk and became uncovered.
The consequence of Noah’s drinking spree popped open doors to numerous vices that would have brought about another phase of humanity wipeout with flood if God had not covenanted with Noah to never again cut off all flesh by the waters of flood nor destroy the earth with flood. That’s how rainbow came to be in the cloud…a sign of that covenant between God and the earth. Howbeit, there’s a dreadful wiping out of sinful humanity in view…not with flood, but with fire. And that will be due to the indulging of several vices; as ushered in by Noah’s drinking spree back then. Firstly, his second son, Ham, saw Noah’s nakedness and irreverently whispered it to his two brothers. The brothers acted nobly towards their father by covering his nakedness with a blanket without as much as taking a quick glance at his bareness. While their respectability earned them fatherly blessings, Ham’s irreverence brought his seed a horrid curse. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.” That was Noah’s pronouncement on Ham’s son, Canaan—the much coveted land of milk and honey. Why was Canaan cursed instead of Ham? Because God had already blessed Noah and his household before the flood. As it is popularly said, “who God has blessed, no man can curse.” Since Noah couldn’t curse Ham, he transferred it to Canaan, Ham’s son. Wasn’t that why the Israelites could afford to oust them and takeover their land despite the fierce giants who embellished their nation? How those giants came to again be on earth after the flood is another unresolved puzzle that definitely stemmed from further vices which had none else but Noah and Co. as source…even continuing till this present day.
Even if God had not covenanted with Noah to never again cut off all flesh nor destroy the earth with flood, would a series of humanity wipeout have brought the human race to the point of attaining God’s motive for creating man? After the flood, there’s no historical biblical record of the many generations that succeeded Noah’s. It’s just genealogy all through the tenth chapter of Genesis. And in the eleventh chapter, what looks like an ultimate attainment of God’s motive for the creation of man is noticed. It says: “now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had one language and speech for a long time and things remained just as God intended…until the serpent showed up with another language and speech, then things went south! Supposedly thankfully, the whole earth was able to get back to having one language and speech as they journeyed from the east until they found a plain in the land of Shinar where they concordantly reached a resolve to make their dwelling place. As it turned out, the motive that became derivable from their much-commendable oneness of language and speech was in total contrast to everything God stands for! In line with the progression of the sinful state of mankind, it was earlier accounted that Adam and Eve only wanted to be like God while Cain wanted God out of the way completely because he considered God a nuisance that needed to be gotten rid of. So he slayed his only brother, Abel, the one fellow who seemed to have the monopoly of invoking God’s presence, unlike him. Therefore, he stirred God’s wrath and got banished. But by the time it got to Genesis 11, mankind had assumed a new dimension of sinfulness: apostasy.
The world’s population today runs into billions…persons of diverse tongues and languages littered across the global village. It is unimaginable to bring all these persons to be of one language and speech. In the book of revelation where a record of the survivors of the great tribulation is given, it is said that they’ll emerge from all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. Of these survivors, Revelation 7:16-17 says that “they shall neither hunger nor thirst anymore; and that the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat scorch them because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd and lead them to living fountains of waters…and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” It will neither take them being of one language and speech to attain such eternal blessedness nor survive the worst of all end-time fates: the great tribulation. Yet, in the early days of human existence when mankind had gone haywire, peoples of the whole earth still managed to have one language and speech? How so?
Well, not even the God of all the earth bothered about how they came to be of one language and speech. He only acknowledged the reality of that situation and the unfailing result it was bound to yield. By the way, those guys had said to themselves: “come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Mere mortals, purposing in their hearts to build themselves a city and a tower whose top reaches the heavens—where God is? And God acknowledged that nothing they propose to do will be withheld from them by reason of them having come to be of one language and speech? Amazing!
Because God had covenanted with Noah to never again cut off all flesh nor destroy the earth with flood, He communed with His dearest Son and Holy Spirit on the next suitable means of averting the apostasy that those rebellious and sinful men were on the brink of inaugurating. As seen in Genesis 11:7, God said: “come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” The delighting efficacy of that strategy is seen in the very next verse. It says: “so the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Consequentially, that city was named Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth and scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. That was a superb remedy to the situation…just like the flood of Noah.
But then again, did that remedy bring the human race to the point of attaining God’s motive for creating man? No! The truth about fallen humanity lies in the morally reprehensible state of man’s heart—as seen in Jeremiah 17:9: “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” In the last two verses of John chapter two, Jesus wouldn’t commit Himself to those who had come to believe Scriptures and the word He had spoken to them because He could read the terrible states of men’s hearts and knew what was in human nature.
The ultimate remedying of humanity’s situation would have been an absolute discontinuing of the race. But for some reason, God just wouldn’t…definitely because, being God, He knew the end from the beginning. So, though He regretted creating man at some point, He also knew that the “grass situation” of the human race would end in grace. Doesn’t Revelation 13:8 make reference to a Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world? Didn’t John testify of that Lamb as being the One who’d take away the world’s sins? For being burdened with such magnitude of glorious purpose, wasn’t that Lamb oppressed/afflicted, yet would not as much as whisper in vexation? Didn’t that Lamb remain silent when led to the slaughter and as a sheep to its shearers?
Wasn’t that Lamb’s life exchanged for the freedom of a corrupt murderous rotten criminal? Wasn’t He despised and rejected by men? Didn’t He come to be a man of sorrows who got deeply acquainted with grief? Didn’t the human race He came to save—hide their faces from Him and wouldn’t esteem Him? Yet he bore the grief of all and carried the sorrows of sundry…which was how grace came on board the human race and has salvaged many situations that would have warranted tempestuous wipeouts like Noah’s flood and the tower of Babel. After those incidents, another phase of genealogy is promulgated up until the time of a man who came to be known as God’s friend, whose belief in God was credited unto him as righteousness, who was the first beneficiary of grace…long before grace was formally inaugurated after Christ’s ascension.
-----
NAKED TRUTH
The word, “truth,” refers to “facts that have been verified and are in conformity to reality and actuality; a true statement with the quality of being correct, true, or close to the true value.” That definition of truth would have been flawless if not for the clause inferred at the end: “…or close to the true value.” Ordinarily, there would be no need for what’s come to be deemed “naked truth” if truth were really statements of fact that are in conformity to reality and actuality—with the quality of being correct, true, and above all, verified. So, though the bible attests of truth as an unfailing phenomenon that is potently capable of delivering folks from backbreaking slaveries, there are deeper dimensions of truth, that—should I say—go beyond being capable of delivering folks from backbreaking slaveries to piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and joints and marrow…even going as far as discerning the motives of one’s heart? I’m talking about dimensions of truth that strictly comprise plain unadorned facts without concealment/embellishment…the precise feature that earns it the qualifier: “naked.” Ever uncovered naked truths? How was the experience? Bad? Good?
Well, the exposition of naked truth that follows—will no doubt afford you unusual realizations that might make you brush aside what you have—thus far— held as truth. The truth is: it will take more than goodwill and a disposition towards godliness for mankind to attain God’s motives for creation. That’s why the prestigious Law of Moses had to discontinue upon the inauguration of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the sweet fellowship of the Holy Spirit; which rests and abides with us. But you know what the naked truth is? There didn’t have to be grace—to rule out the Law of Moses—for the redemption of humanity. There didn’t have to be humanity in the first place—if the need for redemption was going to arise.
Doesn’t God proclaim himself in Isaiah 46:10 as one who declares the end from the beginning, who from ancient times foretell things that are not yet done? In essence, nothing that became and is still becoming of humanity is alien to God. If the situation with humanity is examined from logical perspectives, one could easily assert that God purposely set up humanity to fall short of attaining his motive for creation. So, while Adam and Eve were consecrated and commissioned to superintend over the affairs of the Garden of Eden, an occasion for unfailing compromise was “constituted” to ensure their fall from that initial immaculate grace. Of necessity there were all those trees in the garden for the couple to eat of. But what exactly was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil doing there—if it wasn’t for their consumption? There were several other endeavors in that garden that were absolutely harmless…and only became harmful after the fall of man. For instance, there were no wild animals in Eden.
All animals were domestic because they posed no harm to man. There were no ailments in Eden no matter the manner of contact between Adam/Eve and those creatures. The same applies for absolutely everything the garden constituted of. Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly drown in the four rivers of Eden if they plunged themselves into it. Eden was Eden indeed…a blissful paradise of holy creations…except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It would be delusion to think that the only flaw the couple committed was to eat from that tree. They must have spent nights in Lions’ dens and the Lions didn’t consume them. They must have stepped on Tigers’ tails yet the Tigers didn’t pounce on them. For goodness sake, they were even naked and didn’t know! So, what purpose was that tree supposed to serve?
That logicality no doubt challenges Paul’s charge in Romans 9:20: “…O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘why have you made me like this?’” It could also seem like a dent on God’s image, some sort of flaw that projects God as being “not so sacred after all.” Why create man with the motive of having him bask in your presence forever, then set him up to fall short and become undeserving of your presence? And then regret creating man, even when you knew that man would certainly fall short and become undeserving of your presence? It doesn’t end there. Remedies that were sure not to remedy the fall of man were proposed over and again, even with full awareness that those remedies would go nowhere in remedying fallen humanity. The Law came and was abolished because it couldn’t serve its required purpose.
Prophets came on board and foretold of woes to come—in a bid to draw the consciousness of man to pending dreads, yet man wouldn’t fear nor deem the words of those prophets to count for anything. Even records of past horrible woes that would reoccur if man held onto vices—went nowhere in taming the rebellious nature of man, and God knew that man would become like this. It didn’t take him off-guard. Even the ultimate remedy—the sacrifice of Christ— had been put in place before the foundation of the earth was laid—to salvage humanity upon its assumption of what would have been an irredeemable state of affairs. What exactly was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil doing in that garden? To bring about all these?
-----
EXT. ARENA - DAY
FADE IN:
The preacher had had enough of Prof’s endearingly logical intellectual oratory on motives and naked truths. Though Prof didn’t embellish his address with the degree of spiritual depth that could rock the preacher’s boat, he still managed to relish his lecture...not until Prof began to seemingly play down on God’s personality with his profound exposition of naked truths. Recall the incident in Galatians chapter two when Peter went visiting Paul at Antioch? By reason of the sacrifice of Christ, the law that forbade Jews from associating with Gentiles had been abolished. But there were certain Jews who still held firmly to the law of Moses while impudently disregarding the gospel of Christ. Peter wasn’t one of them. As a matter of fact, he was the rock upon which Christ had avowed to build his church without the gates of hell prevailing against her. This Peter went visiting Paul at Antioch and dealt with the gentiles there like fellow brethren...even eating with them. Paul had charged thus in1st Corinthians 5:11: “but now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person.” But here was Peter in Antioch, eating with gentiles. That presupposes that those gentiles had become brothers who kept that charge, having heard the gospel and turned a new leave. But something happened when some other Jews came visiting.
Galatians 2:11-12 says: “now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision (Jews).” As a consequence, the rest of the Jews who had mixed freely with those gentiles--also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Paul couldn’t stand it! Hence, in Galatians 2:14, he rebuked Peter. He’d said: “but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ‘if you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?’” Such was the situation that turned out ensuing between Prof and the preacher when Prof’s words began to sound blasphemous in the preacher’s spiritually distinct ears. So he stood up to Prof most solemnly in the sight of all. Peter had taken Paul’s rebuke in good fate, owning up to his hypocrisy. But Prof made it crystal clear to the preacher that he isn’t the rock upon which Christ had avowed to build his church. So he wouldn’t take the preacher’s rebuke in good fate. That’s how a heated wrangle erupted in the arena between both dignitaries...some sort of clash...intellect versus spiritism!
PREACHER
I clearly understand your unwelcome assertions about what you’ve misrepresented to this audience to be a divine hanky panky--pulled off by God to put man in a fix, and then blaming man for getting caught up in that fix. You wouldn’t be the first individual to posit such logically sacrilegious submission. The apostle Paul, while ministering in Romans chapter nine, had made mention of how God preferred Jacob to Esau and ordained Jacob to rule over Esau though Esau was older, explaining the ordination to have been borne out of God’s love for Jacob and “hatred” for Esau (Esau did nothing to merit hatred). He also pointed the cursor to Pharaoh, of whom it is thus written in Romans 9:17: “...for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” He summed it up with the notion that God only has mercy and compassion on whom he choses (like Jacob) and hardens whom he choses (like Pharaoh). Then he took a peep into what was likely to be the ponderings of his listeners’ hearts. In Romans 9:19, he had said: “you will say to me then, ‘why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” All through Paul’s ministry, there are two observable subject matters that he fell short of demystifying. One of them was tendering an answer to this question. So he simply answered it with another question: “...O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘why have you made me like this?’” From time immemorial, people have been in the habit of attempting to box God into their intellectual envelope. To such people, I usually stand up against--like Paul did to Peter. So Prof, I hope you understand my plight and reason for seemingly cutting in on your passionate defense of your school of thought on this delicate subject matter...no offense intended. None at all.
PROF
None taken. But the only understanding I am able to derive from your Paul-like religious tittle-tattle is an absolute support of my motion as outlined in my exposition of motives and naked truths. If not, you would not attempt to do like Paul by merely brushing off my perspectives on the matter. At least Paul endeavored to drop science on Peter at Antioch which Peter found agreeable and got remorseful over. But tell me, what part of all I have called into question on the issue of motives and naked truths is out of place? Doesn’t the son of God pose this question in Luke 14:28: “for which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it?” If it is expedient of man (by God) to first sit and count the cost of undertaking a project before embarking on it--to see to it that he has what it takes to finish the project, couldn’t that principle be employed by God to likewise see to it that his motive for creation came through without deficiencies, especially being that God knows the end from the beginning? If man was not designed to fall into the hands of the devil, how come man was made to dwell in a sphere where the devil could access? This same devil attempted overthrowing God in heaven and was deemed unfit to continue dwelling there so he doesn’t cause more damage like he had done by instigating onethird of the angels to join in his rebellion. Yet man, who is but flesh, was made to share a dwelling place with that same devil and wasn’t expected to be outwitted by him? What was Adam/Eve (earthly beings) in comparison to onethird of angels (heavenly beings) that the devil successfully roped into his insurgency? Thus says the Lord in Isaiah 66:1: “heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool.” If the devil could play a fast one on deific entities where God’s throne is, was it mere natural creations at God’s footstool that were required to stand against his scheme?
PREACHER
If the opinion you’re purporting is that God deliberately set up man to fall, you might want to add that even the devil was equally set up to instigate onethird of the angels into the rebellion that saw him getting kicked out of heaven alongside those angels to constitute nuisance on the earth. The forbidden fruit can be branded the stumblingblock that was put in man’s way to ensure their fall. But what about the devil? What, in your professorial opinion, will you assert as having been the obstacle that was put in Lucifer’s way to stir rebellion in him? I’ll appreciate that you backup your argument with concrete, sure enough, incontestable scriptures!
PROF
Do not presume, dear preacher man, that I am in any way obligated to back up obvious statements of facts with flash scriptures just to gratify your religiousness. If, however, I am to indulge you on that request just once, there wouldn’t be better scriptures to cite than Acts 18:24-26. Do not bother reaching for your bible, as I will recite it by heart. It says: “now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” It is said of this man that he was mighty in the scriptures. Plus, he was instructed in the way of the Lord. He was also fervent in spirit...and was even deemed trustworthy enough to speak and teach the things of the Lord, which he did most accurately with boldness. But this man had a shortcoming: he knew only the baptism of John. It took a couple who had been exposed to the gospel of Christ--for this man to get past basking in John’s baptism to becoming veritably inducted into the body of Christ. Do I impress you, preacher man? But then, his scriptural might went nowhere in accounting for his doctrinal accuracy nor factual exactness. If realities on the subject of motives and naked truths were to be deduced from that man’s bold declarations of the baptism of John--in accordance with his scriptural might--for the gratification of the likes of you, then an entire audience--as is here present, would have had to forcibly relish his notional ideas on what he impeccably considered the crux of the matter. Gratefully, there was Aquila and Priscilla to explain God’s ways to him more accurately, which made for his ability to vigorously refute the Jews afterwards and show from scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. Am I making good intercourse?
PREACHER
You do impress me, Prof, but not as much by your seeming scriptural soundness as by your sweetly amplified colorful eloquence. Doubtless, you’re a voice in the field of academia where making good intercourse comes in handy. But as it has to do with rightly dividing the word of truth and earning God’s approval as a worker who needs not be ashamed by reason of that propensity, it’ll take more than a tendency to impress and a proclivity for noetic exaggerations. My request is simple: backup your argument with concrete, sure enough, incontestable scriptures...not school me on events that have no bearing with the issue at hand. Aren’t you supposed to present unarguable facts about how much of a villain God is, drawing backing from God’s own words to further prove how much of a victim God has made out of man?
PROF
Of course! But making my argument scripture-based doesn’t come in as handy in the field of academia as making good intercourse does. And you will agree with me that if my argument must come off as satisfactory and acceptable to all and sundry, making good intercourse will be of the essence--with backing drawn from multiple reliable and verifiable sources, scriptures being one of those sources. At this point it is pertinent to bear in mind the sort of audience being addressed here. It is not a religious sort--in which case my presentment would have to be based on doctrines that tailor the lifestyles of trusties to a one-way-fits-all belief system. It is a mix, and as such, requires substantial tutelage that makes for broadened understanding.
PREACHER
Of all educators who have walked the earth, there’s been none like Christ the King. Yet, all his “presentments” were drawn from the writings of certified stewards of the mysteries of God’s kingdom. And he didn’t limit his teachings to Jews alone but extended his footprints to the gentiles, which is why, even you--in making good intercourse, have endeavored to draw from the same infallible source. Otherwise, what basis have you to pertly discount the persona of God to a mixed multitude who are all creations of that God? Laic books? Stoic philosophy? Intellectuality? What? If you say books, are you more well-read than Jesus? He overcame the tempter with what is written--which he had read, and he always knew the exact nail to hit on the head. There was no end to the Pharisees, Sadducees and even commoners who came around to test him with tricky enquiries, hoping that he ensnares himself by saying the wrong things. The only way Christ sailed through those queries was by what is written. At some point he even questioned them thus: “have you not read?” And these were lofty Jewish teachers, sound academicians and stoic philosophers. It so happened that they couldn’t stand the doctrinal depth of one they considered unschooled. So they sought to put stumbling blocks on his way by employing all manner of stoicism and philosophy...to no avail. Eventually they had no option but to concede. Matthew 22:46 says: “and no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.” So you see, Prof, if you’re going to hit the nail, it better be on the head: a wholesome intercourse...such as can truly impart this highly esteemed audience. Wholesome intercourse indeed!
PROF
Perhaps I should start by posing some questions to you...questions unlike those of the Pharisees, Sadducees and even commoners who, according to you, usually came over to test Jesus with tricky enquiries and hoping he falls short in his utterances. I do hope, however, that--like Jesus, you do not fall short in your own utterances. Mr. Preacher man, would you, wanting to train up your child in the way he should go-- so that when he is old he will not depart from it, gift the child with a bible which is able to make him wise for salvation through faith, and still bestow him with mystic books? Wouldn’t that be a deliberate attempt at making a saint and serpent out of one individual? And when that individual tilts more towards the serpent, why play Pope John Paul by seemingly chastising and even punishing him for not leaning more towards biblical precepts? Tell me, preacher man, wasn’t that what happened in Eden to the acclaimed first couple? Their creation is said to have been free from all manner of blemishes...unlike that of men like David, who, in Psalm 51:5, admits thus: “behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Since the couple had the selfsame nature of God, how come Satan outwitted them?
PREACHER
Prof!
PROF
I’m not finished! Why was an occasion for them to be outwitted by Satan planted in the garden? I’ve learnt that God did so because he doesn’t seek robotic allegiance. He requires unforced worship--which the couple followed through with--despite the pleasantness of the tempting tree to the eyes and its alluring desirability to make one wise. Wasn’t that enough to prove their willing compliance to God’s statute? Did Satan, whose presence God couldn’t stand in heaven by reason of his subtlety and rebellion, have to be granted access to man’s earthly domain? Except you would gift your child with a bible and still bestow him with mystic books, tell me, preacher man, why God did a similitude of that to his same-natured creation whom he didn’t want to have anything to do with Satan. I’m all ears, preacher man. Why?
PREACHER
As much as drawing backing from multiple reliable and verifiable sources is a welcome development, scriptures are, and remain my topmost reference point in backing any argumentation. It is known amongst clergies that seeming puzzles which spring from deficiency in scriptural comprehension--have their solutions and explanations embedded between the lines of other scriptures whose connotations are amply apprehensible. A heated discuss like this ensued during Paul’s time, and aggrieved persons posed similar query to him; misrepresenting God to be a villain-- as you have endeavored to do--meticulously. I identify with Paul’s response to those lots. Therefore I make my response with Paul’s exact words in Romans 9:22-24: “what if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Clearly, there are things God just does in his sovereignty, even things that one may consider inequitable. Romans 9:21 says: “does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” It is at the point where one musters the courage to demand of God why he would make a vessel for dishonor--that Romans 9:20 comes in handy: “but indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘why have you made me like this?’” Think, Prof!
PROF
Excellent imitation of Paul’s over 2000-year-old mannerism. Nonetheless, I have another query for you--that I doubt you will find Paul’s words to identify and respond with. If you were presented two options to chose from, one being for you to be a vessel for honor and the other being for you to be a vessel for dishonor, would you, dearly devout, under any circumstance, settle for being a vessel for dishonor?
PREACHER
I’m not sure where you are going with this. But I’m quite certain that no one in his right frame of mind would settle for being a vessel for dishonor. So, no, I wouldn’t.
PROF
Good! Another question. If you were further presented two other options to chose from, one being for you to be a vessel for dishonor and the other being for you to not be a vessel at all, which would you, dearly devout preacher man, settle for? Tell me!
It’s a hard question, a convo the preacher would rather hold with prof in secluded privacy--in a bid to not badger their innocuous audience with narratives that’ll go nowhere in making for uplifting enlightenment. But prof doesn’t share in the preacher’s sentiment. He wants nothing than to bare his plight and have the preacher or whoever cares--to address the predicaments he has called into question...like he would have--if things were to be the other way round.
PROF (CONT'D)
Again, if God presents you a blank cheque like he did to Solomon but requires you rather to be a vessel for dishonor and dump that cheque (not compulsorily), would you, in your solemn devotion to God, settle for being a vessel for dishonor? Or would you, like Solomon, make the best use of the blank cheque--since it isn’t compulsory to opt for the option of being a vessel for dishonor? There’s more to query you on. But I would love to be treated to a keen address of these ones first.
PREACHER
Like you had mentioned, this is a query I may not find Paul’s words to identify and respond with, considering that Paul possibly never got confronted with a case like this. But there’s another biblical character to imitate, so to say, in treating you to a keen address of this query of yours. Would I, in my sacred devotion, settle for being a vessel for dishonor in honor of God? Or would I rather not be a vessel at all? In answering to this query, I’ll make reference to the man, Job. Prof, knowing the story of Job very well, I ask: if he were to be presented the option of suffering and going through the manner of agony he experienced, do you think he would have obliged? Or do you think he would rather go for a blank cheque and make the best use of it? Even the esteemed vessels of honor, how many of them were made so with their consent? Or do you think that all vessels of honor truly welcome the idea? Has it not occurred to you that certain vessels of honor would rather not be vessels at all? For me, I would never consent to being made a vessel of dishonor out of. Nonetheless, like Job, if God deals such fate on me, I would not call him into question for so doing. And like Job, I would hold firmly to my convictions until God comes through for me and deals me a new fate as was the case in Job 42:12: “now the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.” Is it anywhere on record that being either a vessel of honor or dishonor is a permanent state of affairs? Is it not written in Matthew 20:16 that “the last will be first, and the first last?” Does Ezekiel 18:24 not ask: “but when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live?” Doesn’t the same scripture go on to add that “all the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.” Inversely, does Ezekiel 18:27-28 not affirm that “when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive? Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.” So Prof, being a vessel of dishonor is not a permanent state of affairs. It can be altered...just as Hezekiah altered the decree of the Lord through prophet Isaiah that he was going to die. 2nd Kings 20:2-5 says: “then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, ‘remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.’ And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I’ll heal you.” Do you make reason out of this, Prof?
PROF
If a man, having been made a vessel for honor, messes up along the way and becomes a vessel for dishonor, it is understandable for that man to strive or make effort towards being restored to a vessel for honor. But what about a man who was outrightly made a vessel for dishonor? The man Job, your case study in treating me to a reasonable discourse in line with my query, had always been a vessel for honor, which was why he couldn’t bear coping with being a vessel for dishonor. But what about men like the begging Lazarus who was laid at a rich man’s gate to feed from the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table? Did he for once desire to be a vessel for honor? No! You know why? Because he lacked the capacity to nurse such desire. Joseph could afford to keep dreaming in prison and desiring to be restored to being a vessel for honor because he had always been a vessel for honor until his witchy brothers reduced him to a vessel for dishonor. What I am saying is: not all vessels made for dishonor may have the urge to become honorable vessels, and this reality isn’t alien to God. So why make such vessels with little/no chances for redemption?
PREACHER
You are not far from Job in your lucid annunciation about the issue at hand. The righteous man saw no reason why he, in his sanctimoniousness, was so reduced to a vessel for dishonor. Hence, he sternly called God into question regarding his ill state. But when God obliged his entreaty, he couldn’t stand the impact. So he decried himself with these words: “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” You, dear Prof, like Job, have called God into question regarding this unseemly state of affairs. But then, should God take your plight to heart and decide to oblige your entreaty, will you, unlike Job, not find yourself loathsome and atonable?
PROF
As loathsome and atonable as Job found himself? Possibly. Know this: until God obliged Job’s entreaty, Job didn’t slightly deem himself loathsome, not to mention atonable. It was God’s emergence on the scene that ushered in the naked truth about Job...his motives thereof, which afforded him a view of himself as he really was. Since neither you, nor any “man of the cloth” for that matter, is able to convincingly indulge me on this matter, I am more than willing to welcome God’s presence so that I, like Job, will get past choking on the babblings of disingenuous acquaintances who do nothing but give false appearances of frankness that make for no clarity. Howbeit, woe betide me if I fail to mention that you, in your candid effort to deal me good enlightenment, have brought me to a place of acknowledgement of the need to not readily delve into religious mysticism. But you do understand, dear preacher, that this rallying cry of mine has nothing whatsoever to do with fiendish rebellion. It is only a call for precise enlightenment, as it bothers me till tomorrow why God would run what can safely be tagged “a system of ironies.” Who consciously implements a foreseen outcome--only to end up regretting that outcome, even dealing out punishment on those he ordained to be instrumental to that outcome? And certain of those lots will have to burn in hell for all eternity? Really?
PREACHER
Prof, Sir, I commend your humble applause of my candid effort to deal you good enlightenment...and your meekness in acknowledging the need to not readily delve into religious mysticism. I clearly understand your concern for what seems like “a system of ironies” implemented by God. But I would like to further admonish you with the words of Peter over a similitude of the issue at hand. 2nd Peter 2:10-11 says: “...they are presumptuous and self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.” This goes to show that there are issues that even angels don’t bother concerning themselves with. It also reveals that--of similar issues pertaining to men, certain men have not been reverent enough to not concern themselves with those issues. Of such persons, 2nd Peter 2:12-14 further says: “but these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.” But as for the likes of you who genuinely inquire into these matters, Peter thus exhorts in 2nd Peter 2:9-10: “then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.” In all your inquiries and entreaties, a factor that must be in thorough aligning is your godliness, for it is what brings about deliverance from whatsoever. Godliness...topped off with contentment.
PROF
It’s been a pleasure having this convo with you, preacher. Though my confusedness on this topic lasts, hopefully someday the light of clarity will dawn on me. Kudos!
FADE OUT.
-----
MOTIVES
The only being with the capacity to decipher the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal is God. Be that as it may, certain developments have arisen which infer a clause to that statement of fact— making its presentment come off differently…like: “the only being with the capacity to decipher the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal should be God.” The question now is: what are those developments that have arisen and made others besides God—capable of deciphering the inner envisionings of the hearts of men? More so, how did those developments manage to bestow mere men with ingenious capabilities to peruse the works of God and call into question supposed “ill” motives behind certain of those works—which—in the earnest opinion of the likes of Prof, can very safely be tagged “debatable.” An undebatable source from whence a soothing reply to that question can be drawn is the bible. In 1st Corinthians 2:1, it is asked: “who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” It is clearly evident from that scripture that—when it comes to wielding knowledge of the inner envisionings (thoughts) of a man’s heart, it is strictly within the jurisdictional limits of the man’s spirit. The same is applicable with God. Only the Spirit of God has the monopoly on the visual imageries of God’s heart. That is why it takes only the Spirit of God to read between the lines of scriptures, otherwise, what’s readily comprehensible is the letter of the word. And as Paul sheds light on—in 2nd Corinthians 3:6, the mighty God “made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
So, if it only takes man’s spirit to know man’s thoughts, it implies that the only fellow in the whole wide world who should be privy to the inner envisionings of a man’s heart is the man himself. How then is it that (as it’s become known) other entities have the monopoly of accessing/discovering the exclusive thoughts of men’s hearts? An intelligibly logical hypotheses that explains that possibility can be drawn from the scripture above: 1st Corinthians 2:1—which says: “who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?” So, if it only takes a man’s spirit to know the man’s thoughts, it therefore supposes that—for another entity to come to the knowledge of the inner envisionings of a man’s heart, that entity must have found a way to make contact with the man’s spirit. How so? Well, the closest this literary composer/creative artist can come to adding flesh to that bone is drawing from God’s convo with little Sam in 1st Samuel 2:35. It says: “then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind…” So, though 1st Corinthians 2:1 makes known that “no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God,” God still puts forward that it is possible for his thoughts to be known by another other than his Spirit. But that would be strictly his doing—as seen in the first part of that scripture: “I will raise up for Myself…” If it is possible for mere man to access and discover God’s thoughts, then it is possible for mere men to access and discover each other’s thoughts. However, in God’s case, it would be God’s doing…a sort of commissioning of a trustable steward into an office that would see him accessing, discovering, and relaying God’s thoughts/inner envisionings to masses. But then, how would that possibility come about in man’s case?
As earlier noted, for another entity to come to the knowledge of the inner envisionings of a man’s heart, that entity must have found a way to make contact with the man’s spirit. Hence, for God to commission a trustable steward into an office that would see him accessing, discovering, and relaying God’s thoughts to masses, God is willing to allow for the man’s spirit to make contact with his Spirit; which is no mystery at all, as diverse scriptures attest to many such occasions. But when it comes to man deciphering the thoughts of other men without being confided on by those men, what is the elucidation that demystifies the brain-teasing enigma? Again, the closest this fact-finder can come to tendering a suitable connotation to that enigma would be the words of the prophet Joel in Joel 2:28-29: “and it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. Your sons your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” Since it essentially takes contacts of spirits for motives to be discerned, and it is not yet ascertainable if this discernment can come by contacts of men’s spirits, Joel’s words in that text clarifies that such discernment of motives can come by contact with God’s Spirit on account of an outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh. And the means by which those discerned motives are communicated to relevant bodies are prophesy, dreams, and visions. This is as much as it has to do with discernment of motives with God in the picture, and it does not rule out the fact that certain conglomerate peoples of cognitive universes have devised means by which the motives at the core of men’s hearts can be determined without an outpouring of the Spirit of God. It is a mystery that begs for demystification…at least to the unenlightened ones who still shudder at the exposé.
The bone of contention isn’t necessarily men’s ability to access and discover the motives at the core of other men’s hearts. It is the outcome of that discovery that would be the crux. If Samson, the renowned strongest man in bible history, was somehow bestowed with the gift to discern motives, his witchy Delilah of a darling would have gone nowhere in maneuvering his fall from grace. Imagine for a moment what would have been Samson’s next line of action upon accessing and discovering Delilah’s motives to be his betrayal. Didn’t the youngster burn down vineyards and olive groves of the Philistines for instigating his bride into manipulating him? Didn’t he—with his bare hands—uproot the two gateposts of the city of the Philistines because they came at him to kill him? Didn’t he slay a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey for coming at him to take him hostage? Just imagine what would have become of the beguiling Delilah if her foul motive was detected before she got the chance to implement and execute the wish of the Philistine lords on the Nazarene. It is not clear the manner of his other side that would have been unleashed on account of that awareness. The young man was just a sex freak with a heart full of love…a hopeless romantic— perhaps. But no foul motives graced his tender heart: not towards Delilah or anyone for that matter. But the one in whom he invested his untainted love— turned out being to him what the serpent was to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Again, what would have become of the beguiling Delilah if her foul motive was detected before she got the chance to implement and execute the wish of the Philistine lords on the Nazarene? Take a wild guess. You may be right!
-----
CONCLUSION
Motives have proven to come in handier than truth in relevance…because one could tell the truth with the wrong motives. When Mary broke her alabaster box at Simon the leper’s house in honor of Jesus, Judas Iscariot, in truth, opined that the content of the box could have been sold for much and given to the poor. But the motive behind that statement of truth is evident in John 12:6 which says: “this he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.” The awfulness of the motives of people who—at face value—come off as virtuous and genuine, was why Jesus, in the last verses of John chapter two, wouldn’t commit himself to persons who had come to believe in his name upon witnessing the signs he performed…even those who came to believe scriptures and the words he spoke. An awakening to motives as coming in handier than truth in relevance is a reason “trust” has been tossed down the bin. It is also the reason why love has become less and less the strong positive emotion of regard and affection it is known to be…because the world is littered with grouchy lovers and artful adorers with the most duplicitous of motives. Philosophers like Prof have even called into question the motives of God behind what’s been captured in this piece as a system of ironies implemented by God to the detriment of mankind.
But the likes of the preacher man would rather not treat Prof to that discuss—in a bid to not rub dust on God’s holy image…explaining that God is sovereign, and as such, can afford to call any shots whatsoever! Though that wasn’t enough to gratify Prof’s curiosity on this subject matter of motives and naked truth, he, however, applauded the preacher’s candid effort in dealing him good enlightenment, mentioning how much of a pleasure it was to relish the preacher’s solemn thoughts on the matter. Howbeit, in closing he remarked that though his confusedness on this topic persists, he was positive that someday the light of clarity will dawn on him…be it via the outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh, or the yet-to-be ascertained discernment that comes by contacts of men’s spirits, or the impressively, colorfully, and eloquently delivered lectures of the likes of Prof that make for good intercourse, or the uplifting enlightenment from candid discourses of the likes of the preacher man which makes for wholesome intercourse. Whatever the case, when that light of clarity dawns, all confusedness on this issue shall be dispelled, and seeming puzzles in regards to this matter shall be readily decipherable…be it true-lies, half-truths, naked truths, and most importantly, motives! Selah!
-----
©Jezuzboi, 2023.
Comments