Further thoughts on the Biblical Israel Question

Paul’s style was very intellectual. The early Christian church had many issues to deal with: debates about its tenets; inconsistency of belief and practice, especially between Jews and Gentiles; cultural practices brought over from Judaism and paganism, etc. In his epistles, addressed to each church and in each focussing on issues plaguing that particular church, Paul set out to address these issues.

So, Paul’s style is to expose these inconsistencies by positing hypotheses and premises, and then proceeding to show how inconsistent with Christ’s teachings such hypotheses and premises are. He poses rhetorical questions and then proceeds to answer them. Key among the issues he dealt with were:

1.     The Jews or Israel being a special people and the old covenant. He starts off by putting that forward as a given, and then proceeds to show that if this were so, it would be a negation of Christ’s teachings and of the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth and dying and being resurrected. He shows that, although the Jews/Israel may have been special, by their rejection of Christ they are rejecting God and, therefore, will not receive salvation. He shows, however, that not all Jews/Israel have rejected Christ, that like he (a Jew) there are some who have accepted Him and will, therefore, receive salvation.

2.     The question of the law of Moses. Early Christians who were also Jews/Israel believed that even under Christianity the law of Moses had to be observed (see also below). Again Paul, as indeed did Peter and the elders after much debate, shows that this is not necessary and would, in fact, be an imposition on the Gentiles because the law of Moses was only given to the Jews/Israel. In fact, the continued insistence on the observance of Mosaic laws, even by Jews/Israel themselves is inconsistent with being a Christian and amounts to a ‘betrayal’ of Christ’s mission on earth.

3.     Salvation by grace because of faith, instead of observance of the law or by works. Christian Jews/Israel continued to regard salvation as coming from observing the law, as opposed to grace by faith in Christ, and they continued to believe in works as they did in Old Testament times when they fell short of the law. Paul, as did the elders, shows that this is incorrect and inconsistent with Christianity.

4.     Circumcision. The belief and insistence of the Christian Jews/Israel that Gentile converts to Christ should be circumcised. Paul shows that this is not necessary and emphasises spirituality, over physical circumcision.

5.     Cultural practices. Jews/Israel and Gentiles brought their past cultural practices into Christianity. Paul shows that “the old has gone, the new has come” and exhorts them to abandon their baggage and create a new Christian culture. They are born again, new creations. However, he also argues that even though there is freedom in Christ, in exercising that freedom they should be sensitive to existing sensibilities, for instance on the issue of food.

In reading Paul’s epistles, therefore, it is important to read the whole letter, but in particular, follow a particular argument or point to its conclusion. Selectively looking at chapters or verses may lead to a wrong and dangerous or fallacious conclusion. For instance, in line with what I have argued above is Paul’s style, the passage you have proposed is only part of the argument, which continues in 10 and concludes only in 11. It is therefore necessary to read 9-11 and not just 9 only. My contention is, therefore, not contradicted.

Regarding John’s Revelations. Revelations as a Book is difficult. There are various interpretations of the symbolism contained in there, whether to see it literally or purely symbolically. My own view is middle of the road. Far from confirming a special status for Jews/Israel, I believe there is an element of symbolism aligned with what I pointed out in point 1. Above, namely that there will be a “remnant” of Jews/Israel that turns to God and are, therefore, saved. The fact that there is a specific number according to the twelve tribes, I believe, is purely symbolic. The notion of the remnant of Jews/Israel appears in various parts of the Old Testament starting with Isaiah, through Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel and Zechariah and is also mentioned by Paul in Rom 11:5. It essentially refers to Jews/Israel that gets saved at each stage of their history, in relation to bondage and sin. In Romans Paul puts their salvation as arising from grace, not a special status.

In conclusion, let me also say, though, that the Bible, even in the new testament, clearly states that God is God, He saves whomsoever He chooses. Purely on this basis, and not necessarily a specific special status, if He chooses to save the 144 000 Jews/Israel, who am I to argue with that?

Barefoot doctors

The concept of “barefoot doctors” originated in China. Although the barefoot doctors programme was institutionalised after 1965, following Chairman Mao’s healthcare speech, and subsequently integrated into national policy, barefoot doctors had been around for a few decades before then.

What are, or were, barefoot doctors? According to Wikipedia, these were “farmers, folk healers, rural healthcare providers, and middle or secondary school graduates who received minimal basic medical and paramedical training and worked in rural villages in China. Their purpose was to bring healthcare to rural areas where urban-trained doctors would not settle. They promoted basic hygiene, preventive healthcare and family planning, and treated common illnesses…. Barefoot doctors continued to introduce Western medicine to rural areas by merging it with Chinese medicine. With the onset of market-oriented reforms after the Cultural Revolution, political support for barefoot doctors dissipated, and healthcare crises of peasants substantially increased after the system broke down in the 1980’s”.

Indeed, the success of the Chinese barefoot doctors’ programme was part of the inspiration behind the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its member countries adopting the Alma Ata Declaration (or Primary Health Care Initiative) in 1978.

It is clear that, particularly for emerging and poor nations, a programme of barefoot doctors can radically change the health and mortality outcomes for a nation. The programme could be further enhanced with Cuban-style home visits.

A policy and system of barefoot doctors can address a number of issues for a nation, such as:

·      Rapid production of primary healthcare providers.

·      Cost-effectiveness at the training level.

·      Cost-effectiveness at the provision level.

·      Assistance with adherence to treatment regimens for debilitating illnesses, including HIV-AIDS, diabetes, TB, etc.

·      Rapid improvement of the health status of the poorer sections of the population.

·      Reduction of unemployment in poorer areas such as rural areas, townships and informal settlements.

The need, and potential benefits, of barefoot doctors, are particularly apparent during a pandemic such as Covid-19. If a country like South Africa had barefoot doctors, the response (and outcomes) to Covid-19 would have been radically different. Not only the population as a whole would have been better mobilised, the healthcare system would have had people in closer proximity to communities in townships, informal settlements and rural areas to immediately inform and encourage adherence to health guidelines such as hand-washing, social distancing, mask-wearing, and undertaking testing.

Given the experience of the lack of preparedness for Covid-19, it is perhaps time to consider a strategy to deal with emerging and future health crises and pandemics. In this regard, a system of barefoot doctors would greatly enhance the country’s preparedness, while being beneficial on an ongoing basis.

Chief Justice Mogoeng and his Israel thesis – A Bible-based Response

One of the most revolutionary (and, to the Jews/Israelites then, controversial) concepts or teachings that Jesus brought was that the “God of Israel” was actually a God of all, a God for Jews and gentiles alike, including the mortal enemies of the Jews/Israelites. This is extremely important because according to the Old Testament, God had made a special covenant with “His people”, the nation of Israel, to the exclusion of other nations and peoples (Genesis 15:1-21:34; also, Genesis 28:11-22). To them, for instance, the rabbinic summary of the law exhorting them to “…love…your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10:27) was interpreted hypocritically very narrowly. It definitely did not apply to non-Jews. Which is why Jesus, in His Wisdom, decides to narrate the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-36), at the conclusion of which He instructs or advises him to “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).

Jesus further ‘complicates’ life for the Jews/Israelites by overturning the law of retaliation, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, instead preaching turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, loving not just your neighbour, but your enemies too and those who curse you, “…that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust…” (Matthew 5:38-48).

Indeed, therefore, the notion that God is a God for all implies that the old covenant is broken and replaced by a new covenant, and this new covenant is confirmed by Jesus in two ways. First, He says the only way to heaven is through Him (John 14:6). Whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life but “…he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of only begotten Son of God” (John 3:14-18). It is important to note that, although this teaching has universal application, here Jesus was preaching to the Jews/Israelites, and so no exception or special dispensation was made for them. You believe in Jesus, you go to heaven and you have everlasting life; you don’t believe in Jesus, you are condemned eternally.

Second, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for all our sins. Not just the sins of Jews/Israelites (or Judeans), but all of humanity. Not just people living then, but all future generations and peoples too. This act again invalidates the old covenant because according to the old covenant or laws, sins could only be absolved through the slaughter of an animal: Jesus became the lamb (Genesis 4:4; Genesis 22:13; John 1:29).

The notion, therefore, that the Israelites are/were the chosen dies/died with the birth of Christ and is buried when He is nailed to the cross for all of humanity. Indeed, Chris invalidating the old covenant is one of the reasons the Sadducees and Pharisees and some Israelites were against Him. (In purely political, geopolitical, military, strategic and psycho-cultural terms, it was dangerous talk! It invalidated the belief and feeling by the Israelites that they were “special”, and that they were “chosen” and that they had a “special relationship” with the one true God. The chosen or God’s people were now only on the basis of their acceptance of Christ as Lord and Saviour!)

In his epistles, Apostle Paul further expounds and cements this new covenant and disavows the old. He affirms that God is a God for all, including the Greeks and gentiles. Part of Paul’s doctrine or Christology essentially revolves around or is grounded on this issue. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, Paul makes the assertion that since Christ’s death was on behalf of all, this means that the whole human race has been brought under the sentence of death; and Christ’s resurrection means that in the new order only what He brings to life is actually living (this affirms what Jesus Himself said – see above). Thus, those who do live (in God’s new order) may now live only for the One who died for them and was raised again. Moreover, this new order brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection nullifies one’s viewing anything any longer from the present (or old) perspective, whose values reflect an old age point of view. To view either Christ or anyone/anything else from that perspective is no longer valid. Why? Because being in Christ means that one belongs to the new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!

Paul’s radical, new-order point of view – resurrection life marked by the cross! – lies at the heart of everything he thinks and does. Paul further makes the following assertions, which derail the argument of a chosen nation with special status and special laws given only to them by God:

1.     Christ is the Seed of Abraham, to whom God made the promises. Therefore, who are Abraham’s true children? Those who are of Christ! (Galatians 3:16-29; see also Romans 8:12-17).

2.     The true and enduring covenant with God is spiritual. So, true descent from Abraham is a spiritual one: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; see also Romans).

3.     Observance of the “Law” of Christ (Galatians 6:2). The law or commandment of Christ is to love one another as He loves us or love your neighbour as you love yourself (Galatians 5:14; John 13:34; 15:12; see also above).

4.     On the other hand, Jews/Israelites, who were supposedly the chosen people, and into whom Christ was born and unto whom the gospel was first preached and revealed, by their continued rejection of Christ may actually forfeit any status of being God’s children and may not see God’s Kingdom. The only way that this can/could change is/was through them accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and not any prior relationship or “special” status! (This was again an affirmation of what Jesus had said – see above).

5.     The ultimate goal of salvation is not simply the saving of individuals and fitting them for heaven, as it were, but the creation of a people for God’s name, reconstituted by a new covenant. That is, although people in the new covenant are saved one by one, the goal of that salvation is to form a people who, as the Israel of old, in their life together reflect the character of the God who saved them, whose character is borne by the Christ incarnate and re-created in God’s people by the Spirit (See, among others, Hebrews 8:7-10:29).

In conclusion, to insist, therefore, on a narrow interpretation of the bible in furtherance of unholy agendas is actually a misunderstanding of why Christ came to live among us and to sacrifice Himself on the cross. Indeed, as Paul puts it, “…if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, …[we have] trampled the Son of God under foot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace[.]” (Hebrews 10:26-29; see also 6:1-8). To paraphrase Paul, these Christians, who clearly do not understand what it means to be a new creation and who do not understand the new covenant, are still infants (Hebrews 5:12-14).

Project Evaluation

Deciding if one should make an investment or undertake a project is one of the most important applications of the time value of money concept.

Net Present Value (NPV)

The sum of the present values of a series of cash flows (for example, all the expected cash flows from a project, including any initial investment) is called its net present value (NPV). It is the key tool in finance to judge if a project is worth investing in or not.

It is customary to do the analysis from the point of view of the investor so that cash flows representing investments are negative. Often the initial cash flow (at time 0) is the investment in the project and is negative even though there may be additional (net) negative cash flows over the years.

Assuming that the discount rate used is appropriate for the risk of the series of cash flows, a positive NPV indicates that over the years the project will generate more cash than will be needed to pay off, with the necessary returns, all the investments the project will require. Therefore, a project with a positive NPV is considered acceptable while one with a negative NPV is not. NPV measures in present value terms the excess cash the project would generate.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return measures the rate of return of a series of cash flows of a project taking into consideration the time value of money. It is the alternate measure used to decide if an investment or project should be accepted. Mathematically speaking, IRR is the rate of return at which the NPV of a project or series of cash flows will equal zero, and it is calculated by iteration from the equation for NPV. If the IRR is greater than the rate of return appropriate for the risk of the project, then the project is considered acceptable (and will have a positive NPV). Otherwise the project should be rejected.

Although many people find the IRR measure intuitively more appealing, it has a few shortcomings, and an alternate measure - modified internal rate of return (MIRR) - has been developed to overcome some of them. In general, though, NPV is the more reliable (and superior) tool for evaluating projects or investments.

“Employees Are Our Most Valuable Asset” (Or Are They?)

You hear it all the time from CEO’s: “Our people are our most valuable assets”. But you see some CEO’s acting as if employees aren’t assets at all. Can you imagine a company downsizing or laying off any other assets – just putting it out on the street in hopes that it will walk away? When CEO’s say they have to cut expenses, what they usually mean is that they are about to let people go.

How to reconcile these two views? From a common-sense perspective, employees are assets. Their knowledge and their work bring value to a company. When one company acquires another, the value of employees is recognised as part of the goodwill.

Otherwise, though, the value of employees doesn’t show up on the balance sheet. There are two reasons:

·       Outside of an acquisition, nobody has any idea how to value employees. What is the value of your knowledge? There isn’t an accountant in the world who wants to tackle that one. And the Financial Accounting Standards Board isn’t about to take it on by amending GAAP.

·       Anyway, companies don’t own employees. So, they can’t be considered assets in accounting terms.

Employees do create expense: payroll, in one form or another, is often one of the biggest items on the income statement. But what those CEO’s are saying has more to do with a company’s culture and attitudes than it does with accounting. Some organisations really do seem to regard employees as assets: they train them, they invest in them, they take good care of them. Others focus on the expense angle, paying people as little as they can and squeezing as much work out of them as possible. Is the former strategy worth it? Many people (including me) believe that treating people right generally leads to higher morale, higher quality, and ultimately higher customer satisfaction. Other things being equal, it boosts the bottom line over the long term and thus increase a business’s value. Of course, many other factors also influence whether a company succeeds or fails. So, there’s rarely a one-to-one correlation between a company’s culture and attitudes (on the one hand) and its financial performance (on the other).

South African Airways and the Sunk-cost fallacy

Sunk costs are like spilled milk: they are past and irreversible. Because they are bygones, they can’t be affected by the decision to approve or reject the new financing being required to recapitalise or ‘save’ SAA.

Those who argue that it is foolish to abandon SAA because of past monies invested are wrong. So are those who argue that because of those past monies on which no satisfactory return has been generated and not likely to be generated, therefore no new investment ought to be made.

Both sides are guilty of the sunk-cost fallacy. Past investments are irrecoverable and are therefore irrelevant. The decision on whether or not to approve new investments ought to be made on the basis of fresh appraisals and whether or not those appraisals indicate potential positive returns. It is as simple as that.

Applied Corporate Finance Series - Time Value of Money

This is one of the basic and foundational concepts in finance. 

 

The essence of the time value of money concept is that a rand today is worth more than a rand in the future. If you have the rand today, you can invest it and earn a return on it so that on any future date you will have more than a rand. This is the future value of the rand. If you have PV₀ rand today and expect to be able to earn a return of r₁ by investing it for one period, then the future value FV₁ of your investment at the end of the period will be:

 

 

If you consider investing it for several more periods and in successive periods expect it to earn returns of r₂, r₃, and so on, then at the end of n periods the future value of your investment will be:

 

 

This process of calculating future value is called compounding because it includes earning returns on returns: in every period, you are earning a return not just on your original investment but also on all returns you have earned until then.

 

So far we have not imposed any requirement that the periods be equal, just that each return be appropriate for the length of the corresponding period. The first period, then, may be a year, in which case r₁ will have to be an annual return, the second period may be a month, in which case r₂ must be a monthly return, and so forth. This is the general formula for calculating future value over time, where the length of each period and the rate of return for it can be different.

 

If we assume that all periods are equal in length (for example, one year) and all the expected returns are the same (r), then we can simplify the equation to:

 

 

Assume that instead of asking what a certain amount of money today will be equal to at some point in the future, we ask what a certain amount of money in the future is equal to today. We then have to reverse the calculations, and the general equation for calculating the present value will be:

 

 

And if we assume that all the periods are equal in length and all the expected returns are the same, then the equation for present value becomes:

 

 

The process of calculating present value is called discounting, which is the inverse of compounding. This also involves earning a return on return, although it is not easy to see it here as it was in the case of compounding.

 

Calculating present and future values can also be viewed as the process of moving an amount of money forward or backward through time. The amounts of money involved are called cash flows because they involve cash as opposed to some accounting measures like earnings. We can write the present value of a cash flow that will occur tperiods from now as:

 

 

It is easy to see that if we are anticipating several cash flows over time, we can calculate the present value of each and then add them together to get the total present value of all cash flows.

 

Here are the key points to keep in mind about calculating present and future values and doing time value of money problems:

 

•   The time value of money concept applies only to cash flows because we can earn returns or have to pay returns only on cash we invest or borrow. We cannot calculate present values or future values for net income, operating income, and so on, because they do not represent cash.

•   Only cash flows taking place at the same point in time can be compared to one another and combined together. If you are dealing with cash flows that take place at different points in time, you have to move them to the same point in time, that is, calculate their present or future values at the same point in time before comparing or combining them. For such calculations, most of the time we either present value all cash flows to today or future value them to the farthest point in time the problem involves. However, if it is more convenient in a specific situation, we can move all cash flows to any other point in time as well. Whenever you calculate a present or future value (especially using Excel function) make sure you know which point in time they relate to.

•   The simpler formulas we derived, as well as most Excel functions, can be used only when all the periods are of equal length and the rate of return is the same for all periods. Otherwise you have to use the longer period-by-period formulas.

•   We use the term compounding when we calculate future values or move earlier cash flows to a later point in time, and the term discounting when we calculate present values or move cash flows to an earlier point in time. However, we often use the term discount rate to refer to the rates of return in both cases.

•   The most important thing to remember about the discount rate you choose to apply to one or a series of cash flows is that it must reflect the risk of the cash flows. It is easy to understand that the discount rate should be higher for more risky cash flows and lower for less risky cash flows. However, estimating the risk of a cash flow and deciding what the appropriate discount rate for it should be is one of the knottiest problems in finance. In the models in this lesson we will assume we know what the appropriate discount rate is.