      |
||
Prabhakaran's statement and Talks Prabhakaran's so called 'offer' to hold talks has been the subject of much discussion in recent days. Prabhakaran, the man who wallows in deceit and treachery and who stands accused of mass murders of innocent men women and children through cruel and callous bombings (even the IRA has issued warnings, after planting bombs in public areas), has suddenly emerged with a 'birthday present' for the people of Sri Lanka. The first question that comes to mind is why did he issue a statement on this occasion and not speak in his usual language of the Bomb? Is he changing tack? Has this anything to do with the emergence of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as a political force in India. How will he deal with her or the Congress when they come to power? as does seems most likely. Is he preparing for such an eventuality? The content of his statement is however not positive. 'Peaceniks' and certain politicians have become quite ecstatic because Prabhakaran is once again (for the third time after the IPKF left) wanting to negotiate. I doubt very much as to whether any of our politicians read the statement before they rushed to be the first with the so called 'peace-makers'. When the UNP raised this issue during the Debate on the Votes of the Foreign Ministry I wonderd whether they were wanting the Government to come to some Agreement with the LTTE in order to exploit it for political advantage. If and when there are negotiations,(and they must be at the highest possible level) I do hope most sincerely that Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe would be invited to lead the Delegation, (Mr.SWRD Bandaranaike was a member of a high level delegation to India, during the Kotelawela Administratio) which should of course include both Prof GL Peiris and Minister Kadirgamar, both of whom could grace a UNP Front Bench any day with the same ease as they sit on the Government Front Bench today, and would therefore be eminently acceptable to both parties. As for the LTTE, their track record and commonsense dictate that there can be no negotiations with the LTTE without watertight guarantees from the international community and most certainly not on the basis of the positions they set out at Timpu.The principal factor that has thwarted Sri Lanka's progress over the past 50 years has been the fact that our politicians have put their own interests before the interest of the country. The recent call for "unconditional talks with the LTTE yet another manifestation of this curse? Politics is all about power and it does sadly appear that there are no scruples in the pursuit of power by politicians. Those who advocate unconditional negotiations should only be too well aware of the fact that the Government negotiated without preconditions from 1984, starting in Thimpu. The Government of Mr. J. R Jayewardene, continued to negotiate, without preconditions, with the LTTE in particular. through the Indians. The Indians only acted as intermediatiaries between the LTTE and the Government. After that President Premadasa, engaged in unconditional talks for fourteen months with the LTTE? Did he not send away the Indians toaccommodate the LTTE? Did he not allow the LTTE to abuse the communiquŽs issued after talks with the Sri Lanka Government to brutally attack the Government of India? Did he not dissolve the North-East Provincial Council, which had pledged loyalty to Sri Lanka and taken their oath under article 6 of the Constitution? [Vartharaja Perumal is still paying the price for having sworn allegiance to a united Sri Lanka] Did President Premadasa, not bring down from Sweden Prabhakaran's wife, Mathyavathany and children Charles Anthony and Duwaraga, and unite them with Prabhakaran? Did not President Premadasa hand over the administration of the North and East to the LTTE to appease them? Did not the President Premadasa, order 640 policemen in the Eastern Province to surrender to the LTTE, believing their word that no harm would come to them? Were not all 640 killed in cold blood on 14th June 1990? -and are these the treacherous people that the UNP and the 'Peaceniks' wish the Government to trust and enter into unconditional talks with? Was President Premadasa not the 'Godfather of the LTTE? It was he who put them up in five star hotels, he absolved them of the assassinations of the MP for Batticoloa, Sam Thambimuttu, and his wife, outside the Canadian High Commission. To appease the LTTE did President Premadasa not give them arms and money? And what did they do to their 'Godfather' who fed them with Steaks in the hope that the LTTE carnivores would become vegetarians? They killed him; such was their treachery. Their record of treachery speaks for itself. Recall the manner in which they assassinated Amirthaligam, Yogeswaran and others. The LTTE befriended them only to obtain entrŽe to assassinate them. More recently they assassinated Sarogini Yogeswaran, her successor Sivapalan, not to forget Rangini Thiranagama who did so much for the Tamil cause. It is also necessary for us to constantly remind ourselves of their mindless acts of terror. The bombing of the Central Bank, the Galadari bomb, the Maradana bomb, the bomb on the train at Dehiwela, the bombing of the hallowed Dlada Maligawa, in recent times. Over the years they have placed more that twenty bombs including the Pettah bus stand bomb, the CTO bomb, the two Maradana bombs and then there was the attack at the Sri Maha Bodhi. It is also most relevant to recall the manner in which they broke the cease-fire once again in 1991, (The Government's negotiator Minister Hameed was stranded in Jaffna) and again how they broke the cease-fire without a warning and sank two ships and killed Naval personnel in 1995. Referring to the manner in which they ruled Jaffna the brave Jaffna University Teachers wrote: "One needs to understand the character of a force that constantly resorts indiscriminate terror to keep its people in this state of fear and suffocation". Let us not forget that Prabhakaran is the man convicted of the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. The issues here are straightforward, can we trust the LTTE and enter into unconditional negotiations with them and is it in the national interest to do so? Is the UNP calling for unconditional talks, hoping that the LTTE would deliver that Eastern Province vote bank to them at the next Presidential election? The LTTE has only wanted negotiations when they were facing a difficult military situation. It is no secret that they are tremendously short of men at the moment. They have taken on the State and a State could always marshal resources to fight an insurgency. States cannot loose, whereas Insurgencies more often than not wither away. Those advocating unconditional negotiations should never forget that the LTTE took President Premadasa for a long ride and bought time to reorganise and regroup themselves, which they did over fourteen months and attacked, when they were ready. Did not our unfortunate soldiers have to sacrifice their lives because President Premadasa trusted the LTTE? Tigers do not change their stripes. When the present Government came into office they too naively trusted the LTTE and entered into unconditional talks. The LTTE wanted the talks to bring in an important shipment. They brought in the RDX and SYMTEX (a small portion of which was used to blow up the Central Bank) purchased in the Ukraine on the MV Sweene. A senior member of the present administration even went to the extent of stating that the Intelligence report about the shipment was a Hoax! If the LTTE is using the TULF and their other apologists to call for unconditional negotiations, they must too be experiencing difficulties. If what is being so generously offered through the so called 'Package' is inadequate, what do those who want the Government to negotiate with the LTTE want the Government to concede? Let us all understand quite clearly that if the actions of the LTTE have proved any one thing, it is that they have only one item on the agenda and that is Eelam and Eelam alone. As many Tamil supporters of Eelam have indicated in conversations, "too many have died for this dream and Prabhakaran cannot now settle for any thing less. That would be a betrayal". Let us be realistic, the LTTE does not believe in Democracy or a negotiated settlement. What is the 'message' of the latest bomb in Jaffna? they will continue to eliminate moderate Tamil leaders and they will set the agenda. It is futile to hold talks with the LTTE. The recent 'birthday message' of Prabhakaran is only a political gimmick. Let us examine the 'message': 1) Prabhakaran states "Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism and militarism in Sri Lanka have been the stumbling block for a negotiated political settlement". Comment So it is not the LTTE's intransigence that has been the stumbling block!P seems to be suffering from amnesia and completely forgotten his record of treachery. 2) The LTTE leader laments "that the racist attitude, approaches and policies of the Sinhala governing elite". Comment Who is it that has practised ethnic cleansing? who is it who wishes to establish a mono-ethnic state? P appears to have his own definition of 'Racist'. 3) Prabhakaran states "The rigid, intransigent and bellicose attitude of the Sri Lanka Government". Comment This Government which seeks to move further from the 13th Amendment and to give the Tamil people unprecedented Legislative power, is described as "rigid and intransigent" and Prabhakaran who is insisting on our acceptance of the "Timpu principles" perhaps considers himself to be flexible! 4) Prabhakaran states "The LTTE prefers to hold talks in an atmosphere of peace and normalcy, in a congenial atmosphere, in an environment free from military aggression, occupation and economic blockade imposed on the Tamil homeland". Comment Prabhakaran wants the military to be withdrawn from the Peninsular, to hold talks. Do those who are now demanding that the Government hold "Talks", agree to Prabhakaran demand? President Premadasa had the IPKF withdrawn, the NE Provincial Council; dissolved and gave Prabhakaran control over the North and the East and what did he do on the 14th of June 1990? It may be asked of P as to what sort of atmosphere and environment prevailed when the present Government oppened Talks with the LTTE in 1994? And who was it that treacherously broke the 'cease-fire' without any warning? 5) Prabhakaran states, " We are prepared to engage in INITIAL TALKS to discuss the removal of such pressures (referring to "military aggression and occupation") and to work out a basic framework for political negotiations". Comment "Initial talks" 15 years after Timpu!. and his conditions for "unconditional talks"! Not worthy of a comment. 6) "Sinhala chauvinists have been adopting genocidal policy against the Tamils with single-minded ruthlessness and arrogance". Comment Even a lie should have a sense of proportion. This statement must be treated with the contempt it deserves. Who is it who has ordered the slaughter and expulsion of civilians from areas within the control of the LTTE. Who is it that has exhibited "single-minded ruthlessness and arrogance" 7) "It is well known internationally that more than sixty thousand innocent Tamil civilians have been brutally done to death over the years by the terror and violence unleashed by the racist state in the Tamil homeland. Further, more than eight hundred thousand Tamils who fled the country have sought refuge all over the world". Comment Prabhakaran's imagination must surely be running wild. Whoever said it must have had P in mind when it was said "lies, damn lies and statistics"! 8) Prabhakaran: "The Sinhala nation is engaged in a war of aggression to occupy Tamil land and to subjugate the Tamil people. We are fighting to protect our people and to liberate our soil from aggression" Comment: Do those who are calling upon the Government to enter into unconditional talks, accept this characterization of the problem? Those who have read the text of Prabhakaran's statement in the original Tamil, state that there are significant omissions in the translated version. The original is said to be an uncompromising commitment to Eelam. From the foregoing it is obvious that there is no opening to commence any form of negotiations. Those who are calling for negotiations would do well to study Prabhakaran's letter before making irresponsible statements, that could lose for them millions of votes, not only of the Sinhalese but also of other nationalities including the votes of Tamils. It would be unbecoming for anyone to play football with this country's vital interests for short-term political gain. The people may be tired of war, but since the LTTE will accept nothing short of Eelam, has any Government any other option but to fight on, even if it takes another ten years? If of course the LTTE is prepared to abandon its pursuit of Eelam and its demand that we accept the "Thimpu principles", then negotiations could begin with or without third parties, but certainly with international guarantees to join in action if the LTTE breaks off the talks and resumes the war. Meanwhile the Tamil people of this country wait with justification, for the two principal 'Sinhala parties' to forge a common position, and state the bottom line with regard to what is on offer to settle the problem. They recall, only too well of how over the last forty years, when one 'Sinhala party' took the initiative and came to an agreement with the Tamils, the other 'Sinhala party' claimed it was a sell-out of the Sinhalese and sabotaged the Agreement. No 'acceptable' solution can be found unless a guarantee can be given to the Tamil people that this would not be repeated for the Nth time in the past forty years. The writer was a fromer Sri Lankan Ambassador and Additional Secretary of the Foreign Ministry China, Japan vie for economic dominance
in Asia TOKYO, Dec 14 (Reuters) - A year of Asian turmoil which saw China raise its economic profile while Japan sank deeper into the mire has left many convinced the region has a new rising star. But while demographics and the developing economy dynamics mean future Chinese growth will outstrip that of Japan, some experts say it would be a mistake to conclude that China can fill Japan's shoes any time soon in terms of the trade, investment and aid flows vital to the Asian economy. "Japan's potential growth, even if the government gets reforms in place, is on the low side because of demographics while China's potential growth is considerably higher," said one international economist. "Clearly, China is a much more important international economic player than it was. But to put that in a framework that says China's gains are at Japan's expense...I think is simplistic," the economist added. "They are two very different economies at very different stages of development." Beijing earned global kudos on the crisis front last summer when it stood firmly behind its yuan currency and declined to devalue it despite a steeply falling yen. Analysts had feared a yuan devaluation would trigger another regional crisis. China's leaders also won praise from the United States and elsewhere for their commitment to economic reform, while Japanese policymakers faced a barrage of criticism for what cynics saw as efforts to perpetuate an outdated economic system which strangles growth and dampens dynamism. "How quickly China continues to rise depends on accelerating the reform process and cleaning up the state enterprises and the banking system," said Bill Belchere, head of fixed income and economic research at Merrill Lynch in Singapore. "They've taken steps in that direction...and given that they are starting from a much lower base they can probably change relatively quickly and close the very large gap with Japan." Tokyo, despite its hefty contributions to international bailout packages for crisis-hit Asian economies and its $30 billion Miyazawa Plan to help the region, emerged as something of a whipping boy for failing to pull its own economy out of its worst post-war recession. The Japanese say a mammoth 24 trillion yen stimulus package unveiled in November, in addition to public fund infusions into top banks and financial sector restructuring, will pull the economy out of recession in 1999 and restore real growth a year or two later. Some cautious optimists also see signs that Japan has shed its policy paralysis and set off on the road to recovery. "We've seen a more credible assessment of Japanese banks (by authorities), legislation in place for public money to deal with banks that at not insolvent and...some signs that the better banks are trying to assert themselves and differentiate themselves from the rest," the international economist said. For many others, however, doubts run deep. Some see a Japanese financial crisis brewing that would spell another round of disaster for the region. "They're talking about stimulating the economy, but if the Japanese economy could have been stimulated out of its morass it would have got out of it years ago," said David Roche, president of financial analysis firm Independent Strategy. "The reason they don't want to do it (real financial sector reform) is they know perfectly well that at the heart of the bad debt problems of Japan, of the rotten financial system, lies the state itself," Roche told Reuters Television. Worries about the durability of China's recent robust growth are meanwhile increasing, as are questions as to what extent recent gains were an illusion based on dubious data. Official figures show China's economy grew 7.2 percent in the first three quarters of 1998 and Beijing has forecast an eight percent rise for the year as a whole. But Rolf Willi, Asia-Pacific chairman of Dresdner Bank, told Reuters that China would be lucky to have grown at half that rate and said the faster than expected slowdown would threaten badly-needed reforms of banks and state-owned enterprises. Others echo those concerns. "I think the optimism about China is grossly overestimated both by their own statistics and also by people's perceptions of them," Roche said. "My view is that China is not growing and most of the growth and optimism we hear about are fabricated."
The Triumph of Christianity Christianity began with the advent of Jesus in Judaea, a small hill country on the eastern rim of the Mediterranean Sea. Judaea was a part of ancient Palestine, the homeland of the Hebrew people and of the Jewish religion. At that time Judaea was a province of the Roman Empire, and had a native king named Herod the Great (BC 37 - 4 AD). He was enthroned king of Judaea by the Romans in 40 BC., and he established his government in Jerusalem. His last years were akin to a reign of terror, and it was alleged that he ordered the slaughter of all the infants in Bethlehem, to ensure the death of infant Jesus, whom he visualised as a rival. Although Jesus was born in Judaea, he grew up and spent most of his life at Nazareth in Galilee; a Roman province in Palestine, bounded on the South by Samaria, on the West by Phoenicia, on the North by Coele Syria and on the East by the Jordan river in the Levant. Hence, he came to be popularly known as Jesus of Nazareth. At the age of 30 years, he began teaching and preaching and travelled from place to place in Galilee, Judaea and the adjacent regions. After about three years, he was arrested, and having charged for violating the Jewish religion, and accused of trying to make himself King of the Jews, in defiance of Rome, was denounced to Pontius Pilate (AD 26 - 36), the Roman procurator of Judaea, who was unsympathetic towards the Jews. Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to death and to be perished upon the Cross (A Roman punishment abhorred and execrated by the Jews). Accordingly, he was crucified on a hill overlooking Jerusalem, on Friday, in the week of the Jewish feast of the Passover, about the year AD 29. Passover is an ancient Jewish spring festival, which commemorates the Exodus, i.e., the going out of the Jews from Egypt. From evidence acquired in 1932 by excavations made at Jericho, Prof. Garstang believed that the Exodus took place in 1447 BC. It is said that in former times, a lamb was killed and eaten at the feast (Exodus 12: 3-11), but a shank bone, i.e., the part of the leg from knee to foot, is the present substitute therefore. According to the Holy Bible, Jesus had said unto his disciples: "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified" (St. Matthew 26:2). Jesus asserted that he was the Messiah (the Saviour) and the King (the Christ), promised to the Jews by their ancient prophets. But, he dis-appointed the Jewish leaders, who expected a person who would come in glory and power, as an earthly king, and free them from Roman rule. Jesus said quite frankly "that his kingdom was not of this world, that it was the kingdom of heaven, that it could not be seen, and that it existed in the hearts of men who would repent of sin and do the Will of God. "He thus criticized very severely the formalism and hardness of heart of the Jewish leaders. Doubtless, in the eyes of the multitude on that fateful Friday when Jesus was crucified, his mission seemed a failure. To Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, the whole thing must have seemed a trivial affair among a despised people in a small corner of the great empire of Julius Caesar (BC 102 - 44). But the crucifixion did not end the matter nor was it forgotten. It is recorded in the Christian gospels that "on the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus rose from the dead, and during the next forty days was frequently with his disciples and others, and was then taken up into heaven". Among the disciples of Jesus were twelve men whom he had chosen for special training. They were: "Simon who is called Peter; Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew, the publican; James the son of Alphacus; Lebbacus whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot" (St. Matthew 10: 2-4). These men, of course, were the leaders among the disciples. They preached at Jerusalem and there, on the Jewish feast of Pentecost, they acquired new power through the Holy Ghost, as Jesus had promised them. For a time the Apostles and other Christians preached only to the Jews. Of all the Apostles and early disciples, and almost all of the Christian converts, for several years, were Jews, and most of them were common people. Soon Gentiles, people who were not Jews, were also admitted to the Christian fellowship. The chief person who handled this work was Paul, and his Jewish name was Saul. It was at Antioch, about 42 AD., that the name 'Christian' was first applied to the followers of Jesus. It was from Antioch and Paul and others first set out on long mission tours, for the definite purpose of preaching the gospel. About the year 62 AD., Paul was killed and was a martyr of the faith. The reasons for the spread of Christianity were that it was possible for the Christian missionaries to travel widely to preach the doctrine; Greek had become a familiar language in most parts of the Roman Empire; the New Testament was written in Greek and most of the Christian missionaries could speak Greek, and the poverty of the masses made them eager for the news of human brotherhood. In the face of all opposition, Christianity made headway in the Roman Empire. At the close of the first century, there were Christians in all the chief cities of the Empire. At the end of the second century, perhaps, five percent of the population were Christians. The first Christian church was organised at Jerusalem, immediately after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Then, with the preaching of the new faith outside Judaea, churches were built at Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth and other cities. It is said that a Christian church was founded at Rome, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius (AD 41 - 54). Among the local churches, the one at Rome played a prominent role. The belief that the bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter, chief of the Apostles, made Rome the principal centre of the Catholic Christian church. In the early centuries of the Christian era, the word 'Pope' (meaning 'father'), was a title applied almost exclusively to that bishop who claimed to be the chief of all Christian bishops, i.e., the Bishop of Rome. In the western and eastern churches and in the Anglican communion, a clergyman consecrated for the spiritual direction of a diocese is called a bishop. The Christian reformers of the 16th century were divided into two camps: namely, those who remained within the Catholic church and upheld its organization and the teachings while they laboured to remedy abuses within the church, and those who broke with the church, gave up some of its teachings, and set up new organizations, i.e., Reformed Churches, and they came to be known as Protestant Churches. The first reformer to lead a large number of people in western Europe to openly break with the Catholic church was Martin Luther (1483-1546). A native of Germany, Luther became a monk at the age of 22, and shortly thereafter was appointed professor of theology in the University of Wittenberg. As teacher and preacher, he was popular with the students. He was bold and outspoken, fearless in expressing his opinions which he considered faultless. At the same time, he was deeply concerned about the problem of eternal salvation. Gradually he began to doubt whether it was possible "to do anything to just please God", and to believe that the only hope of humanity was "simple faith in God's mercy" on the part of each individual. Luther's break with the Catholic church was gradual. In 1517, at the age of 34, he first attracted wide attention in Germany, by questioning openly the granting of 'indulgences' and the doctrine of 'good works' on which the former rested. An indulgence, as considered by Catholics, is a promise of special favour after death. It is a promise of remission, in whole or in part, of the punishment which might be meted out to a person after his death for sins, for which he had been truly sorry and had done penance. To obtain an indulgence, the penitent is expected to say certain prayers, or visit certain churches, or do certain other 'good works'. In the Middle Ages, going on a crusade or giving money for a crusade had been deemed 'good work'. In 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther, and requested the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, to punish him as a heretic. The Emperor was disposed to punish Luther and his adherents including princes, noblemen, priests and the elite sympathised with Luther and he was able to defy the Emperor as well as the Pope. Luther, thereafter, flooded Germany with pamphlets in which he violently attacked Pope and the Catholic Church. The followers of Luther became Protestants. After protracted civil war in Germany, between Catholics and Lutherans, the so-called Religious Peace of Augsburg was agreed to in 1555. At first, King Henry VIII of England opposed Luther but later he broke with the Pope because he was bitterly disappointed when Pope did not approve a marriage that the king very much desired. Besides, the king was anxious to exalt his own royal authority in church as well as in state. Accordingly, in 1534, he induced Parliament to pass an 'Act of Supremacy' under which the king was substituted for the Pope as head of the Church in England. Gradually, it became the Church of England. The king did not attempt to change the doctrines or the form of worship, but under his son, King Edward VI (1547-1553), and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603), various changes were made. In Switzerland, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), led a revolt against the Catholic church. He differed from Martin Luther on a few points, specially in regard to some of the sacraments and somewhat in the manner of church organization. When war broke out between the Catholics and Protestants of Zwingli, he was killed in battle at Kappel in 1531. Then came John Calvin (1509-1564), the French reformer. As a young man, he proved to be widely influential in shaping Protestantism and its organisation. At the age of 20, he broke with the Catholic church, but being regarded as a heretic in France, he left his native land and took refuge in Switzerland. At Geneva, from 1536, until his death in 1564, he was the city's religious oracle and political dictator. His teachings received wide popularity, because Calvinism "was more democratic than most other forms of Christianity, and, therefore, it appealed to many who were tired of religious autocracy". Many of the Swiss followed Calvin's teachings, and so were the Hollanders. In Scotland, Calvinism was introduced by the Scottish Protestant reformer John Knox (1505-1572), and was adopted by the state. The history of the Christian church and religion deals not only with external matters, such as its extension and its political and social relations, but also with its inner development in doctrine, ritual and ceremonial. Church history is divided into three main periods; namely, Ancient, usually dated to the end of the pontificate of Gregory the Great (AD 500), but carried by some to Charlemagne's foundation of the new empire (AD 800); Mediaeval, which closes with the Reformation, and Modern, from the Reformation to the present day. The whole system of Christianity may be regarded as having its foundation in the doctrine of the Existence of God. Next to this may be placed the doctrine of the Fall of man. Man is represented as involved in misery by sin, original and actual, and every individual of the human race as incapacitated for the service and fellowship of God, obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and liable to punishment in a future and eternal state of being. Salvation is ascribed by all Christians to the grace of God. The mission of Christ was an act of supreme grace. Christmas (Cristes Masse or the Mass of Christ), is the season in which the birth of Jesus is commemorated throughout the world, and the central point of celebrations being the Christmas Day, the supposed actual anniversary of the nativity of Christ, which is celebrated on the 25th of December every year. It is marked by the Roman festival of the winter solstice (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). 'Peace on Earth' was NOT the Christmas
message Every Christmas we see and hear the message "Peace on Earth and goodwill among men" in Christmas cards, newspapers, magazines, display material on radio and T.V. Even wars are halted by mutual consent of the parties concerned. Such temporary ceasefires are considered to represent the 'peace on earth' significance of Christmas. First, let us see what man considers 'Peace' to mean. Primarily, peace is considered a state in which people co-exist without hostilities. The world is said to be at peace when there is an absence of war among states and nations. But the individual expects much more of peace. He expects to be free from want of money, food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life. He wants to enjoy good health, to have security of employment and safety of his bodily self and possession. In fact, man expects peace to be a life free of worries and problems. Next, let us find out how the popular belief that the message of Christmas is 'Peace on Earth' became accepted. In his gospel St. Luke records the message brought by an angel to some shepherds on the day that Christ was born in Bethlehem - "An angel of the Lord" appeared to them. They were terribly afraid but the angel said to them, "don't be afraid" I am here with GOOD news for you, which will bring GREAT joy to ALL the people. This very day in David's town your SAVIOUR was born - Christ the Lord!" (Luke 2.9-11). The Christmas message was that man's Saviour was born. Luke further records the praises to God sung by a great army of heaven's angels soon after the message was delivered to the shepherds. "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased" (Luke 2.14). It is from this passage of Scripture that man has extracted the section which reads "peace on earth" and made it to be the Christmas message. The reason for all misinterpretation of Bible text by man is that he removes a particular section of Scripture out of its context and then reads in or out a meaning to his satisfaction. In this case it is because most men, including Christians are really not concerned about Salvation - the assurance of eternal life with Jesus after physical death. man forgets how uncertain and short his earthly life is - "NEVER boasts about tomorrow. You don't know what will happen between now and then" (Prov 27.1). "We are like weeds that sprout in the morning that grow and burst into bloom, then dry up and die in the evening "Psalm 90.5,6. man also forgets that he is NOT here to make himself comfortable but to make himself CONFORMABLE to Jesus Christ. "Fear God, and obey his commands because this is ALL that man was created for" (Ecc 12.13). Therefore man finds it more comforting to think the message of Christmas to be the peace they expect on earth. Now let us go back to the Bible and carefully study St. Luke's record of the Christmas message. The message was universal in nature as the angel said that it was good news which should bring great joy to ALL people. The message itself was that the Saviour of man was born on that day. The Saviour was NOT a worrior king come to save the Jews from their conquerors the Romans as was expected by the majority of the Jewish people due to their priest misinterpreting the prophetic Scriptures. The Saviour was Jesus Christ God in Human form (1 Timothy 3.16). Did the birth of Christ bring peace on earth as expected by man ? No! On the contrary it brought the exact opposite. Jesus said, "Do NOT think I have come to bring peace to the world. No. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family" (Matt 10. 34-36). The sword is the word of God - "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph 6.17). "The word of God is alive and active, sharper than any double-edged sword. It cuts all the way through to where soul and spirit meet to where joints and marrow come together. It judges the desires and thoughts of a man's heart" (Heb 4.12 Jesus' teachings turned the world up side down. They exposed man's hypocrisy and left him naked and helpless. This hurt man's pride, for he preferred to rely on his OWN good deeds and righteousness for his salvation. Further Jesus demanded TOTAL commitment to him - "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not fit to be my disciple, whoever loves his son or daughter more than me is not fit to be my disciple. Whoever does not take up his cross and follow in my steps is not fit to be my disciple. Whoever tries to gain his own life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will gain it" (Matt 10.37-39). Whoever who believes in Jesus Christ makes those around him very uncomfortable. This is why Jesus said the first to oppose a believer would be the members of his own family and those who are close to him. Jesus too experienced this - "Not EVEN his brothers believed him "(John 7.5). "A prophet is never welcomed in his home town" (Luke 4.23). Next, let us find out from the Bible what the "peace on earth" referred to in the angels' praise meant. When we read Luke 2.14 carefully we see what the angels actually said was, "peace on earth to THOSE with whom he is PLEASED!" It was NOT a UNIVERSAL proclamation but a CONDITIONAL one. The events that immediately followed the birth of Christ show us clearly that it was NOT peace as expected by man that was proclaimed by the angels. Jesus' birth first shattered the peace of mind of Herod and others in Jerusalem - "When king Herod heard about this, he was VERY upset and so was EVERYONE in Jerusalem (Matt 2.3). Then followed the terrible massacre of all male children of two years and under in Bethlehem and its neighbourhood (Matt 2.16). So we see what the FIRST Christmas brought was not peace but violent death and bitter weeping (Matt 3.16). Yet the angels had used the words "peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased." This means that those with whom God is pleased are able to have peace while on EARTH. We now have to study the Bible further and find out whether the peace referred to by the angels was DIFFERENT to the peace as understood by the world. Jesus tell us of the peace which is DIFFERENT from the peace known to the world. "Peace is what I leave with you; it is my own peace that I give you. I do NOT give it as the world does. Do not be worried and upset; do not be afraid" (John 14.27). Paul too refers to this VERY SPECIAL peace - "Don't worry about anything but in all your prayers ask God for what you NEED (we should note that Paul used the word 'need' and not 'want' or 'covet'), always asking him with a thankful heart. And God's peace which is far beyond human understanding will keep your hearts and minds safe in union with Christ" (Phil 4.6,7). What is the cardinal DIFFERENCE between the peace of God and the peace the world gives? It is this, the peace the world gives a man depends on the circumstances affecting him. If the circumstances are favourable to him, he enjoys peace. If the circumstances are unfavourable to him, he has no peace. The peace of God while not being affected by circumstances has another wonderful aspect to it. It frees man from worry and fear. Jesus says that when a man has the peace of God, he does not need to worry, be upset or be afraid (John 14.27). Paul too says, "Don't worry about ANYTHING" (Phil 4.6). The Bible reveals the reasons for this: (1) NOTHING can happen to him nor can ANYONE do ANYTHING to him, UNLESS God permits it. This means that NOTHING ever happens by CHANCE - "For only a penny you can buy two sparrows. yet not one sparrow falls to the ground WITHOUT your Father's CONSENT." (Matt 10.29), EVERYTHING that happens in this world happens at the time GOD chooses" (Ecc.3.1). (2) There is a blessing in ALL things that happen to him even though he may not realize it immediately -"And we KNOW that ALL things work TOGETHER for GOOD to THEM that LOVE God "(Romans 6.28) "It is GOOD for me that I have been afflicted; that I may learn thy statutes" (Psalm 119.71); "God teaches man through suffering and uses distress to OPEN their eyes" (Job 36.15). (3) Through thick and thin, the ups and downs of life, God is with him. God NEVER leaves him - "I am with you ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world" (Matt 28.20). (4) NO ONE can CARE for him or LOVE him more than God - "My father and mother may abandon me, but the Lord will take CARE of me" (Psalm 27.10). (5) Jesus said that we should be afraid ONLY of God -"So do NOT be afraid of people - Do NOT be afraid of those who kill the body but CANNOT kill the SOUL rather BE afraid of God, who CAN destroy BOTH body and soul in HELL" (Matt 10.26, 28). It is now clear that the message of Christmas is VERY DEFINITELY - "This very day in David's town your SAVIOUR was born, Christ the Lord!" (Luke 2.9-11). On this day God offered man a GIFT of his Son Jesus Christ - "For it is by God's GRACE that you have been saved through faith. It is NOT the result of your OWN efforts, but God's GIFT, so that NO ONE can BOAST about it" (Eph 2.8,9). ALL man has to do is ACCEPT God's gift and be saved from his sins. Man can THEN have the peace of God on EARTH. |
||
 |
||