Steve, you wrote:Paidion,
Just a procedural question here, aside from the main discussion:
I can appreciate your taking Jeremiah seriously when he has God saying that He expected a different outcome than what actually transpired. There are those who believe that this is anthropomorphic language. Why would they think that? Only because their prior theological commitments tell them that God could not have failed to know the future accurately.
But what about the times when Jeremiah (and other prophets) quote God as saying He is bringing disaster and punishing Israel, or some other nation? You don't credit those words as being reliable. They represent the prophet misunderstanding what they think God is saying. Why do you say such a thing? Because you hold to prior theological commitments that say that God would never do such things.
My question is: If you believe that the majority of the things God is said to have declared in the prophets are subject to such radical error, why do you not assume the same when you read Jeremiah 3:6-7? By what exegetical rule do you trust some things the prophets say while distrusting the majority of their statements?
Hi Steve, I feel certain that you don't want to open up the debate once again concerning Moses and the prophets in their limited understanding of the character of God. So I have been pondering what you are actually asking me here. I think you may be doubting my consistency in the affirmations I have made concerning Moses and the prophets. You appear to think that one must either accept all that they have written as true, or else all that they have written is false. But perhaps I am mistaken. For you ask me, "By what exegetical rule do you trust some things the prophets say while distrusting the majority of their statements?"
I am not sure that I distrust the majority of their statements—unless the majority of their statements affirm that God is hateful, vengeful, and a destroyer of nations, and one who instructs the Israelites to destroy nations, blesses them when they dash babies' heads against a rock, and instructs them to stone to death adulteresses, and rebellious sons, and to cut off the hands of women who try to protect their husbands who are getting the worst of it in a fight by grabbing at his opponents genitals, and emphasizing that such women are to be shown no mercy. Did Jesus follow the instructions that Moses and the prophets gave? If so, He wouldn't have behaved toward the woman caught in adultery as He did. Rather He would have said, "The law is clear. She must be stoned to death!" And He probably would have been the one to cast the first stone. But instead He showed mercy to the woman and did not condemn her to stoning. Rather He simply said, "Go and sin no more."
My exegetical rule is that wherever Moses and the prophets describe the character of God in a way that conflicts with the way that Jesus described Him, that portrayal of God is to be rejected.
Since Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), He is Another exactly like the Father. So He taught us both in his words and in his character what the character of the Father is. The Son of God is the "Logos", the expression of the Father to mankind.
In His words, He taught us the the Father is kind to both ungrateful people and evil people. (Luke 6:35). The apostle Paul, too, after he became a disciple of Christ taught that God's kindness is meant to lead us to repentance. (Romans 2:4). But Moses and the prophets taught that God was a punishing being who punished wrongdoing and was a destroyer of nations that dared to oppose His people Israel.
Now I know you have quoted to me the following verse to try to show me that Jesus also depicted the Father as one who commanded people to kill those who revile their parents:
For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’(Matthew 15:4)
In response, I quoted the following verse from Mark (who related the same incident) to indicate that Jesus may not have said that God commanded this. Rather He may have said that Moses did:
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ (Mark 7:10)
Then you attempted to minimize the difference by asseverating that there was no difference, since what Moses said, God said. Of course I disagree, since that is the essence of my position, that some things Moses said that God said, God didn't say.
Since Jesus was another exactly like His Father, then we would expect His character to be like that of His Father. But according to Moses and the prophets God killed people and instructed the Israelites to do the same. Jesus never killed anyone or instructed His disciples to do so. According to Moses and the prophets, God commanded the Israelites to fight against those who oppressed them. Jesus' disciples were oppressed by the Romans, but Jesus never commanded them to rebel against their oppressors, but rather to pay their taxes.
In Matt 5, 6, and 7, Jesus quoted Moses and others as saying one thing, and then said, "but I say to you" something other. The "but" indicates a contrast. He didn't say that God has spoken to them of old time. He didn't even say that Moses said to them of old time. Rather He said only "It was said to you of old time..." as if what was said was not authoritative. It was
Jesus' instructions that were authoritative. True, some of His instructions were even harder to obey that what was said of old time. Others were exactly the opposite to what had been said.
In conclusion, Jesus portrayed the Father—expressed the Father, through His life and His teachings. If He hadn't, probably the true character of the Father would never have become known.
