Is there really such a thing as truth? Now there is a certain attraction to the idea of relative truth, even for the Christian. It can make what I hold unchallengeable by making it safe from any logical refutation. But by making it irrefutable, it drains it of all meaning. If what I believe is simply a nice story that I believe because I feel like it, how can it make any real difference in my life or challenge my previously held notions?
Further, if truth is relative, then any thought I think could easily be something else entirely. Under this condition, every word on this page is meaningless. And so is everything else. Further, any action presupposes truth. If I flip the light switch, I expect the light to go on. And if not, I try to find a way fix it. But if truth is relative, I am left paralyzed, unable to to do anything. And attempts to supply something else to replace truth only end up presuming truth. To say something works or is true for me is to say it is true that it works or is true for me. No one really believes in relative truth. They only use to evade certain truth claims they find inconvenient. But they live the rest their lives based on the assumption that truth exists and can be known.
Now belief in absolute truth does not mean I have all the answers. Nor does it mean I can never question anything or cannot make mistakes. The existence of dreams and mirages does not prove you cannot know anything. As long as it is possible to determine what is true and what is false, it is possible to know truth.
But one can ask, what if there is something that distorts our perception which we are unable to recognize or correct for? It is difficult to disprove such a distortion, not because it is plausible, but because it undermines the basic premises that make proof possible. It is also impossible to prove, because if our thinking is distorted in some undiscoverable way, all our proofs are meaningless. But while we cannot absolutely disprove this bogey, it is impossible to live five seconds based on it. And to live my life based on something unproved and unprovable and that I cannot live by anyway seems nonsensical. Also, I have to ask how this nonsensical world has come to have the appearance of making sense. For it does at least seem we can know things and act on them. And it is futile to live our lives based the idea that there is an invisible, intangible, inaudible, unsmellable, nonallergic cat in the chair across the room, just because we cannot prove it is not true.
I really try not to use the word truth when speaking of scripture. In mt view the Word of God and not the words of God is truth. Not that scripture cannot contain truth.
ReplyDeleteAs you may have figured out I cannot wholly agree with you on that. My problem is if the Scriptures are seen as only containing truth, how do I decide which parts to accept. If the Bible cannot challenge my own beliefs and the beliefs of my culture, what is the point of it.
DeleteThat is not to say there are not problems. This is to be expected in a book written in a different time, a different culture and in a different language. I therefore feel it is important to interpret the parts by the whole and look for the broader perspective. God said it, I believe it and that settles it, seems a bit simplistic. But I also sympathize with C. S. Lewis when he says it is often the thing I find initially repugnant that contains the truth I most need to know.
Also It is my impression from our previous conversations that one of your biggest problems is that requirements of the Old Testament law. I would hold that it represents what we deserve and not what God is prepared to give us. But that opens our old discussion on retributive justice.
I can accept that what the bible says is true in the sense that people who wrote it were not knowingly offering false testimony. For example, I believe that Moses actually believed that God told him that rebellious children should be stoned to death. Yet I do not believe that God actually told that to Moses as it contradicts the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI could give many examples such as this where I think that the story is absolutely true in how it happened. Yet in accepting that as true one does not need to accept the idea that God actually said everything that men said that he did.
In my view Jesus came to actually show us the image of God. His life, teaching and ministry rebut many of the images of God previously presented. In him I see eternal truth. This truth trumps any other version of truth written in scripture.
As I said the law tells us what we deserve not what God gives us. Nonetheless it needs to be pointed out the text in question is clearly talking about an adult son, glutton and drunkard does not sound like the description of a child. (Note in that time they had extended families and a son would not generally simply go off on his own.) Now Jesus' story of the prodigal son gives the other side, that of grace that triumphs over judgment. But the two fit together, showing what is deserved and what grace actually gives.
DeleteI agree that Jesus is the ultimate interpreter, but He continually affirms the Old Testament Scriptures. He does correct some of the misunderstanding and gives the side of grace. He does away with certain ceremonies that are fulfilled in His coming. But I do not get the idea He consistently rejected it as a mistake. And if people were constantly mishearing God, how can we tell what is correct?
We are divided on this Mike. I do not see the OT Law and the Prophets simply describing what people deserve but what Moses and the Prophets demanded be done. There was a demand that the rebellious son, gay person and adulteress be executed by stoning. There were demands that babies and infants in foreign lands be executed. People believed that God was ordering them to do these acts. And, if I am hearing you correctly, you also believed that God ordered these heinous acts. I simply cannot see God in such a pejorative light.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that we are divided on this issue, as I think we have found out in previous conversations. I do believe God has wrath and demands sin should be punished. But He also has grace and takes that punishment on Himself (yes we are back to that substitution thing again). I admit that is paradoxical, but for me it creates less of a problem then denying one or the other. Therefore I do not regard these demands as simply heinous. I do not know what we can say about this that we have not already said, but that is my position.
DeleteI am still a bit confused Mike. I know that we have discussed in past threads but I think that it would be helpful to understand how you see God's command to execute children and infants in 1 Samuel 15?
ReplyDeleteI think that the truth that we can learn from this is that Samuel missed God and did not hear him correctly. The lesson for me is how sometimes (even prophets) can be blinded by nationalism and do really bad things.
What truth or lesson do you get from this story?
Was Moses then blinded by nationalism when he gave the original of this command and was Abraham motivated by nationalism or greed when he left Ur for a land God would show him. This obviously implies the removal of the people already there. And does the story of Israel make any sense if this is so.
DeleteWhile I believe that one day we will stand before God every person will be judged only for their own sin and everything in their life including their suffering will be taken into consideration. But in this life there does seem to be an effect that the sins of the parents affect the children and that other people can be caught up in the judgment of related individuals sins. The moral I would draw is that we need to be careful that our sin does not drag others down with us.
I thought that dealing with one specific passage of scripture might help to clarify what your thinking is on it. The passage deals with the execution of children and infants. Your response seems to indicate that you do not have an issue with the killing of innocents in war because God ordered it and the adults sins brought God's wrath on the children. I think that this is the same belief that religiously motivated terrorists espouse today.
ReplyDeleteI simply reject that because I do not believe that truth is relative. I believe that the killing of innocents involves an absolute truth. It is always wrong and immoral. It is wrong today and it was wrong when Samuel ordered Saul to kill infants and babies. To believe otherwise is to accept truth as relative and not absolute.
Regarding Abraham and Moses. I would be willing to discuss them but feel that we should at least talk through the 1 Samuel passage first so that we can examine the validity of each other's views about it with regard to whether truth is relative or absolute with regard to the killing of innocents.
While I find it difficult to deal with this passage apart from the broader context I will try to respond to your questions. I do not see that was or ever can be a war that does not involve the killing of innocents. The problem with terrorism is that singles out innocents with the particular idea of producing terror by doing so. But I do not know how it is possible to conduct a war and not hurt anyone but the guilty.
DeleteSaying that dead children and infants are simply collateral damage of war does not really address the issue of whether the killing of innocents is wrong. Collateral damage is different than what Samuel believed God wanted Saul to do. The ordered killing of infants and children is not collateral damage because the killing of these innocents was directly ordered.
ReplyDeleteTo say that it is was okay in that OT passage makes the killing of innocents a relative truth. I simply cannot accept the killing of innocents as a relative truth. It is wrong today when terrorists do it and it was wrong when Samuel ordered it. To say that it is not would mean that one believes that this truth is relative and not absolute.
What is and is not relative truth depends on what the requirement is in the first place. Exactly what the rules for war are is a matter that has been of considerable debate and simply because I do not hold to a particular position does not mean I think truth is relative. It is like telling someone that no divorce is allowed for any reason and that if they hold there is any legitimate grounds for divorce they believe sexual morality is relative.
DeleteThis is clearly an unusual case which is why I cannot totally separate it from the case of Moses. The idea was that there where certain very specific cultures that were so corrupt that God commanded they be eliminated. This was targeted at certain very specific people. But this does not seem to be at all the same as deliberately and specifically targeting buses full of school children.
"What is and is not relative truth depends on what the requirement is in the first place."
ReplyDeleteI would like to understand what you are saying Mike. What are your requirements for something to be an absolute truth vs a relative truth?
Thanks, Bob
I apologize if I was confusing and requirement may have been a bad word. What I mean is moral principle or command.
DeleteTo use my previous example if I hold that it is a moral principle that divorce is wrong under any circumstances and then turn around defend a particular divorce I may be accused of holding to relative truth, but if I have always held there were some legitimate grounds for divorce I am not.
I think wiping out an entire culture because it is corrupt is an extreme act of war and should only be done in exceptional cases under the command of God. But I am not saying it is wrong in all cases. That does not mean I do not believe there are any moral principles involved in warfare or that terrorism is acceptable. I think there is a difference between removing a whole culture as corrupt and specifically targeting non-combatants. You may not agree with this, but I do not think it means I am holding to relative truth.
I guess it all depends on the criteria that one uses to determine if God has commanded something. Of course, if one has no independent criteria for knowing if God has commanded something then they will follow whatever the leader tells them that they heard from God. This is the problem that many cults have.
ReplyDeleteIn my view one should be careful when they hear a leader say "thus says the Lord". Especially when the leader commands something immoral like ethnic cleansing or drinking poisined Kool-Aid. In my view God is not immoral and does not command immoral acts. Now one has two options:
1) They can say that the ethnic cleansing is not immoral because God commanded it or
2) They can say that ethnic cleansing is immoral and people who believe God commands/commanded it simply did not hear God correctly.
You choose #1 and I choose #2.
I do not feel the rules of warfare are so simple and clear and just because just because I take the position I take I will believe anything anybody tells me.
DeleteI think there is a difference between Moses and Samuel who are repeatedly and consistently affirmed as prophets in the Old and New Testament without qualification and any cultish person who comes along and claims to speak for God.
Therefore I would affirm neither 1 or 2.
You continue to speak of "the rules of warfare" as if they are exceptions to moral law and Jesus' golden rule. I do not find anything in scripture that validates the ordered execution of infants and children.
ReplyDeleteYou also so seem to believe that OT prophets are some sort of popes that are infallible in the way that they heard from God. In doing so you put Moses and Samuel on pedestals and make them more than human. I simply cannot go there.
No "man" hears God perfectly. To believe such a thing is to idolize the man and accept ideas like the stoning a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num 15:32) or murdering infants and children because their ancestors mistreated Israel when they left Israel.
So the question is how do we read the scriptures. Do we simply accept immoral acts as God ordered simply because a prophet says "thus says the Lord"? Or do we understand that great men like Moses and Samuel had feet made of clay and sometimes did not perfectly understand the will of God?
Make that "mistreated Israel when they left Egypt".
ReplyDeleteIs there is no determinable word for God and no identifiable messengers from God how do we know anything about Him. Are we to confine ourselves solely to the words of Jesus. But we know them only through the writings of men. And we know who Jesus is through the writings of those who prepared the way for Him and witnessed to Him.
DeleteGod's command to Moses (and I do not know how to deal with Samuel apart from it) is a fundamental part of the Old Testament and removing it makes large parts of it make no sense. Did God knock down the walls of Jericho the assist something He was opposed to.
Warfare is by definition an exception to the normal rules of morality. You kill people. You kill people where you do not have the opportunity to determine their personal culpability. Even the combatants may be innocent in the sense that they are just there in obedience to their country and do not fully understand what the whole thing is about. Unless one holds to complete pacifism, which I do not perceive you do, I do not see how you avoid this.
The modern rules of warfare are from what I can see purely human deductions from broad moral principles. None of them are basic like the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments. They are merely human philosophy. Some of them I agree with. Others of them are at least good ideas Some may be a bit idealistic. But none of them are carved in stone anywhere.
You seem to embrace an all or nothing approach to the scriptures when you say: "removing it makes large parts of it make no sense". If I am hearing you correctly, you think that "all" of the teachings of Mosaic Law are foundational to the entire OT. So if one says that the stoning of a man carrying wood on the Sabbath is immoral then (in your view) the entire Law is immoral. Or if one says that that the ordered executions of infants and children is immoral then all of the words of Samuel are immoral. I find that to be an odd way to approach the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteI repeat that God has not established a super order of infallible popes. He has always worked through fallible men and women. Sometimes accommodations were made for hard hearts. Concepts like "an eye for an eye" (Ex 21) were certainly not an expression of the heart of God but Moses' capitulation to hard hearts. I think that understanding these things helps us to make sense of the bible. But seeing them coming from the heart of God maligns the character of God and presents Him as something other than what we see in Jesus.
And regarding warfare, I do not find anything in scripture where war is an expression of the heart of God. War is an expression of the dark heart of man. It is the opposite of Jesus teachings in the sermon on the mount. I do not know why you continue to speak of war as an expression of the will of God that excuses the ordered execution of children and innocents.
Regarding Jericho, I do not see where God commanded him to execute children and innocents. He seemed to indicate that the King and "fighting men" would be delivered to him. I do see where Joshua believes that the things sacred to God are not children and infants but things made of silver, gold, bronze and iron. So I am not sure that one can come away from the story with the idea that Joshua was hearing from the heart of God simply because the walls fell down.
I do believe the Bible is authoritative. If it is simply a grab bag that we can pick anything we want out of it what is the point of having it. As I said before if the Scriptures cannot challenge my opinions and the opinion of my culture than it becomes just a pale reflection of my philosophies. From my perspective the problem with the pope is that he claims to speak for God simply because of his position and claims no one can question whether he really does and whether what he says fits with what is already revealed. But that does not mean no one can be relied on to speak for God.
DeleteBut frankly I am reluctant to press the reliability of every word and detail of the Bible because I do not think that is the point here. We do not seem to be disagreeing over the minutiae like where Cain got his wife and what kind of creature swallowed Jonah.
The issue here seems to be the same issue we have dealt with before, does God really have wrath toward sin. This is a broad issue and affects how the whole Bible is understood including the crucifixion. And taking out the idea does not just affect a few odd passages but large sections of Scripture. If Moses and Samuel are such moral monsters should not the next person who genuinely heard from God have denounced them. It clearly says that Joshua killed everyone in Jericho except Rahab's family (Joshua 6:21) and this is following Moses' repeated commandment. Why is God aiding this if it is wrong?
You seem to think that if I just admit that the Old Testament occasionally made mistakes I would automatically agree with you. But I believe there is a more basic issue here.
I also believe that the bible is authoritative. But I think that it's authority is diminished when believers say that it teaches that people carrying wood on the Sabbath should be executed and that the execution of infants and children is okay because the bible teaches that God once ordered it. Better that we go with Jesus and understand that parts of it includes things allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts. Why besmirch the name and character of God in the name of some theological point of view?
ReplyDeleteGoing back to your original point in the blog post, I believe that there are tremendous truths that are taught in the bible if one does not elevate the beliefs of man over the heart of God. Reading the OT we can learn about how great men like Moses and Solomon sometimes missed the heart of God. It does not lessen these men in our eyes but makes them human instead of popes.
Regarding Jericho, you argue that God wanted the infants and children of that town executed simply because Joshua ordered his men to do it. I do not think that Joshua was commanded to that but did it for other reasons that have nothing to do with the heart of God.
Regarding wrath, I do not think that the heart of God is wrathful. Jesus came to show us the Father and the heart of God. It would be hard to make a case that Jesus life and ministry was all about wrath. It is plan to see that the heart of God is loving mankind ala John 3:16.
I do think that the scriptures challenge our opinions and the opinion of our culture. It challenges us to look back at the violence of the OT and understand that man was and still is intent on doing harm to each other. It does not call us to see God as wrathful but opens our eyes to see ourselves as wrathful. The bible calls us to look in the mirror and see how we have created a god of wrath in our own image. Love and not wrath is the issue. It is why Jesus needed to come. God loves us. It is the Good News.
We have covered this before, but I do believe God has wrath. I do not see how to remove it from the warp and woof of the New and Old Testament. I am not saying I like this or find it appealing but it fits in with God's continually expressed opinion of human nature. Jesus was incredibly gracious to sinners but He repeatedly threatened people (particularly the self-righteous) with judgment for very idle word. The New Testament offers salvation has a free gift, but promises judgment to those who reject it.
DeleteIf God has wrath it makes sense it would occasionally be expressed. One can endless debate what is appropriate and what is overkill, but it is not something I can reject out of hand. The Canaanites killed their own children themselves as a form of worship to their god along with other evil practices and it is difficult to say at what age the children would have picked up the parents values. (We know less about the Amalekites, but given that they are the only other people treated in the same way, I would suspect the same type of practices.) The man gathering wood on the Sabbath had seen incredible miracles and been repeatedly instructed by word and example not to do that. Nor do I see how how it can all be put down to mishearing God. There were undoubtedly children among the first born of Egypt. I do not claim to be able to judge perfectly where wrath is appropriate. But I have trouble throwing it out entirely.
The wrathful image of God that you present might have been valid if Jesus had not come. But Jesus did come and revealed God to us as One who:
ReplyDelete1) opposes the religion of man,
2) loves and hangs out with sinners,
3) had compassion on the sick.
4) used his power to exorcise demons,
5) fed those who were hungry,
6) taught us to love our enemies,
7) said we should treat others with love,
8) told us that God loves us,
9) welcomed and blessed the little children,
10) rebuked the hypocrisy around working on the Sabbath,
11) forgave those who hurt and abused him,
12) chose to laid down his life for us.
I do not see a revelation of a wrathful God in Jesus. He certainly had the power to do harm to those who opposed him but never laid a divine finger on anyone.
Even so, because of their preconceived idea of who God is, many expected a wrathful Messiah to come and overthrow Rome. These missed God because of their belief that God was some sort of divine warrior who spews out his wrath on the enemies of Israel.
The good news of the gospel is that God is not filled with a dark wrath towards us but with a bright love. He is not like the earthly father who requires us to perform for his acceptance. He is not a dark God to be feared when we make mistakes. He is the light filled one who says to come unto Me when you are weary and depressed and I will give you rest. This God revealed in Jesus continues to amaze and challenge me.
The god that you present is not too dissimilar to Allah. Mohammed was a warrior and he envisioned such a god. The wrathful warrior god is a common image in cultures that are obsessed with conquering their neighbors. I do not see any of that in Jesus Christ, God the Son.
So the choice that we have is either to allow Moses and Samuel to define God for us or to believe that Jesus showed us the Father. I choose the latter as I do not elevate the words of Moses or Samuel to the level of the words of God the Son.
This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. -1John1:5
Lastly, I do not see wrath in the early church. These followed Jesus' teaching and spread the good news of the kingdom. These did not take up swords but followed the leading of the Spirit and did not harm anyone. These are in sharp contrast to the warriors of Israel because they had a new and different understanding of who God is.
All that said Mike, I do not think that I have changed your mind about the Truth expressed in Jesus who told us that he was the Truth. So I am okay to say that we simply agree to disagree about the nature of God and what the definition of truth is.
I still do not see the absolute contradiction you see between a God who loves people and is angry at the way they behave. I almost feel there is an underlying different of perspective here we have not been able to pin under. But I do not know what else I can say I have said except that I do not see two fundamentally different concepts of God here. I think you are right that we just have to agree to disagree.
Delete"angry at the way they behave"
ReplyDeleteI do think that God, like his Son, may be angry at the religious people who have perverted the image of God and love their theology more than people. I think that it is possible that God may be angry with those who call themselves Christians and do not care for the least of these among us.
That said, I do not see Jesus being angry at "sinners" in the way that you see God being angry. As I read the gospels I see God Incarnate acting with kindness, gentleness and compassion. I do not see the image of "sinners in the hands of an angry God" that you seem to embrace. If God is angry, he is probably angry at hypocritical religious people and not the folks that such religious folks marginalize and call "sinners".
So I do think that we have a different perspective I think that we should interpret God and all scriptures through the lens of the Lord Jesus Christ as reported in the gospel accounts. If we do this we do not see God as angry at sin but angry at religious hypocrisy.
When I think of my own children who have made mistakes and have sinned, I am not angry at the sin but broken hearted by how their choices have affected them and others. When Jesus looked at the woman caught in the act of adultery, he did not act with anger but with compassion. When he told her to sin no more it was all about wanting her to be whole and not about being angry at her adultery.
In contrast to this I think (I may be wrong) that you embrace an image of God that is not consistent with the image we see of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. You seem to embrace the image of God that is revealed by Moses when he demands the stoning of a man carrying wood on the Sabbath and an image of God ordering the execution of non-Israeli children and infants. As I have said, I think that this view is more consistent with a modern Muslim view than a Jesus view.
So yes, we have two different views but it is doubtful that anything is underlying these beliefs. We simply see Jesus differently.
I would agree that Jesus was incredibly gracious to forgive sinners. I would also agree the chief objects of Jesus' anger were the self-righteous who thought they had no need for forgiveness. But it does not fit to say self-righteousness is the only sin He really opposes. It takes only a casual reading of the Sermon on the Mount to see He is opposed to all sin. I am not in favor of fire and brimstone preaching, but Jesus spoke of hell more than almost anyone in all of Scripture. He made incredibly gracious invitations like "Come to Me all who are weary and heavy laden," but He also made strong rebukes such as, "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish." I do not see how one can get around the judgment of God by simply sticking to Jesus. He came in great humility and grace to save us. But He has promised He will come again in power to judge the world.
DeleteI do not believe it is pejorative or saying God has a dark side to say He is concerned that evil deserves judgment. Given the track records of human beings through history (including me) I do not see that it is unreasonable that the justice of God and even the love of God would require judgment. Can He simply close He ears to the cries of the victims and say nothing should be done. Now I believe God can forgive even the most heinous of crimes. But if those crimes do not deserve judgment what credit is there to God that He forgives them. By wrath I do not mean God got ticked off one day and could not restrain Himself. But I do mean that He does not simply accept all human behavior with a calm indifference. Nor do I believe He should.
Interesting how our conversation has gone from the immoral execution of wood carriers, infants and children to excusing and justifying such immorality by speaking of the wrath of God.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I am glad that you do not embrace (as some do) the image of sinners in the hands of an angry God. Your view of wrath as not being ticked off but simply judging bad behavior seems to present a better image of God.
I agree that what some take the wrath of God to tramples completely on His mercy. In that we do have common ground.
DeleteThe wrath that we see in God is simply a reflection of the dark wrath within our souls. What many call judgment is simply natural consequences of bad behavior.. In our quest to make sense of the darkness in our world we have mistakenly projected our own darkness and wrath on the one who is called (in 1John) Light and Love.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes feel when we discuss these subjects that the words have if not different meanings at least different connotations. I am not willing to totally give up on the word wrath, which is used frequently in the New Testament, I suspect it is an anthropopathism, but I believe even anthropathisms are used intentionally. I do not think it means God has a temper tantrum and is unable to control Himself. The word I would prefer is justice but want to take either side on the distinction you want to draw. By justice I mean that evil deserves punishment. Not that God cannot forgive it, have mercy on it or be patient with it, but it is what it deserves. I do not see this as dark or tyrannical but as the way things should be. I have considerable sympathy with C. S. Lewis' idea that sin is its own punishment. But I do not see God as being merely passive in the process of judgment.
DeleteJustice is a great word Mike. Even so, I think that we would differ in how we define it. I like what the bible says about justice.
ReplyDeleteLearn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)
This is what the LORD says: “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.” (Jeremiah 21:12)
This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another.” (Zechariah 7:9)
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. ( Isaiah 30:18)
That said, I think that your definition might resemble the human view which includes retribution and satisfaction. This is the way that a favorite author of mine puts it:
There is a biblical concept of “judgement” or “wrath.” Jesus warned frequently that the people were calling judgement on themselves and called them to turn (repent) from the course they were on. Judgement or wrath is the consequence of sinful or hurtful action. It follows from sin like falling is the consequence of jumping off a cliff. Paul writes in the Romans that “the wages of sin is death.” The wage, the thing you get as a result, what you have coming to you, is death. “but the gift of God is eternal life.” God who is a God of love (compassion) and justice (making this right) desires not to see us die, but to give us life. God desires to break us out of the vicious cycle of consequence and to therefore bring about justice—to make things right again, to restore us to where we where meant to be. Not by saying that it is of no consequence that we are bleeding and broken, but by taking us out of the treadmill of death, by liberating us from the tyranny of hurting and being hurt. That is what biblical justice is all about. It is not in conflict with compassion, it is rooted in compassion.
I fully agree that justice requires us the do good to the poor and the hurting and the oppressed. But if anything this is a higher and harder standard than the superficial austere form of justice that some people have tried to make it into. It is easier to try to live up to that false standard, than to be truly loving and compassionate. And the problem is we fall far short of the standard. The question is how is God to respond to this. I would answer that God responds by offering forgiveness, but that forgiveness implies that we really deserve punishment for our behavior.
DeleteI fully agree that sin has consequences. But I would say it has consequences because it deserves to have consequences. Because God has created the world in such a way that it has consequences. I almost get the idea that you are seeing something greater than God that makes sin have consequences and God is trying to rescue us from this higher force.
"I almost get the idea that you are seeing something greater than God that makes sin have consequences and God is trying to rescue us from this higher force."
ReplyDeleteChoices seem to have consequences. God seems to have given man the ability to choose to do good or to do bad (i.e. sin). God himself made a choice to come to earth to show us what he is like and what he thinks about our choices. He told people to repent - some did and some did not. Some believed his message and some did not. All of those he spoke to eventually experienced the consequences of their choices.
Yet God incarnate did not authorize the execution of a person who made a bad choice and committed adultery. Instead he had mercy on the woman and showed humankind how to treat sinners. He did not rescue this woman from a "higher force" as you insinuate but he rescued her from the law of Moses. In this act God Incarnate showed us the error of Moses. He also showed us that Moses was wrong to execute the man carrying wood on the Sabbath.
Again, I think that it is about letting Jesus and not Moses tell us how to deal with sin. Moses was a great leader but he was not God Incarnate. If we really believe in Jesus we will see the difference between him the fallible OT judges and prophets.
I agree that choices have consequences, but I would say this stems ultimately from the nature of the universe, which stems from the character of God. That it is that way because God made it that way.
DeleteThe woman caught in adultery is used by Jesus to make a particular point. That those who were arguing the woman should be stoned were just as guilty as she was. I do not think it is meant to do away with all civil law. (Actually this was a lynch mob, but I do not think that was the main point.) Certainly this flies in the face of the rest of the New Testament and I am unwilling to reach such a conclusion based on this one incident. God does in the Old Testament let off people who should be legally liable, for instance King David. But I do not believe that means the law against murder should never be carried out. I do not claim to know why God chooses in some cases to show mercy and others not, other than that He knows the heart. But I think abolishing all civil penalties based on this incident is an extreme interpretation. (One thing which confuses this issue is today we tend to see adultery and breaking the Sabbath as minor infractions. And I do believe the Old Testament Sabbath was done away with in New Testament times. But I do not believe that is point here either.)
I have no issue with civilizations being able to make laws. The issue is when civilizations say that every one of their laws is from the heart, character and even the lips of God.
ReplyDeleteI think that David escaped judgment because he was above the law that he so seemed to love. He used his power as King to escape judgment. I am okay with that because I do not think that David (or Nathan who accused him) were infallible pope-like human beings. I would think that you might have expected Nathan (he was a prophet after all) to demand that David be executed for breaking the sixth and seventh commandments. Seems like a prophet would be a person who would demand that the law be executed if he really believed in the law as God given.
I mean really, are we okay with a wood carrier being executed but not a murderer? I am because I understand that these men (Moses, Nathan and David) are just men who make mistakes when they enact laws and when they apply them. But I am suspecting that you do not see it the same way and feel that the wood carrier was deserving of death but David was deserving of the pass that Nathan gave him for willfully committing both murder and adultery.
And as a reminder concerning how a prophet should be regarded:
"I think there is a difference between Moses and Samuel who are repeatedly and consistently affirmed as prophets in the Old and New Testament without qualification and any cultish person who comes along and claims to speak for God."
So the issue for me is the inconsistency with which prophets seem to speak. One says (in Leviticus) "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." and "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." while the prophet ignores Moses on both violations of the Law.
So, since you believe that God spoke to both of these men (Moses and Nathan) do you believe that God changed his mind? Doubtful that you would say that. More likely that you will say that God often chooses mercy over judgment.
I am okay if you say that God sometimes chooses to have mercy and sometimes he does not. It is the way that God mitigates the errors that Moses made when he wrote the law. Would that mercy was given more in the bible - perhaps the wood carrier would have lived? Perhaps Samuel would not have ordered the execution of children and innocents. Would that more prophets were like Nathan and understood that some of the Law was in error and needed the mitigation of mercy.
Would God punish a man for breaking the Sabbath and let a murderer go free. On the ultimate level I would have to say, yes. God forgives murderers who accept His forgiveness, but judges those with smaller more conventional sins which do not come to Him for forgiveness. When dealing with the civil aspects of the law it is more complicated, but the same broad principle applies. As I have said the law tells us what we deserve. I believe God in shows mercy and forgiveness to us in spite of what we deserve. But that does not mean that there are never specific cases where individuals do get what they deserve. I do to know why in every case why it happens that way, only God knows the heart. But it does not seem to me inconsistent.
DeleteIf someone hold to a very austere view of justice with little or no mercy, they will expect that the harshest punishments to always be given. If someone holds to an idea of mercy where God does not judge they will expect God to exact little or no punishment. But if as I hold there is a complicated interplay of justice and mercy I would expect a more difficult situation which would look inconsistent from either extreme. But not only am I not willing to throw out large tracts of the Old Testament to get a simpler answer, I am not really comfortable with that type of answer in the first place.
I do not think that one needs "to throw out large tracts of the Old Testament to get a simpler answer". One needs to simply understand the culture and historical context that they were written in. In doing so one does not malign the name and character of God by blaming him for the execution of wood carriers, infants and children.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I have learned so much from the OT about the nature of human beings (even OT popes) and their interactions with God. But before I could I had to loose the grip that legalism and literalism had on me. I had to allow myself to see God the way that John wrote of him in his first epistle. As John aged he began to understand that "God is love" and "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all". It is the image of God that I see in Jesus.
So after many weeks of beautiful conversation here I am okay to end with that Mike. I do not think that either of us have swayed in theology but I do think that we have learned much from each other. And in the end I have found that we have more in common than not. We both love the Lord Jesus Christ. We both love the bible. And we both love each other. And that ain't bad. :)
Just realized that I may have been presumptuous. Did not mean to end this if you still want to discuss Mike. Either way is okay with me. -Blessings, Bob
ReplyDeleteI think we have pretty thoroughly covered the subject and it is clear we both have strong opinions here that will not easily be swayed. So if you would like to end it here, at least for this time around, I am willing to do so.
Delete