Forgiveness: A sermon on Genesis 50

[TheGrungeDiva]

Genesis 50:15-21:

15Realizing that their father was dead, Joseph's brothers said, "What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong that we did to him?"16So they approached Joseph, saying, "Your father gave this instruction before he died,17"Say to Joseph: I beg you, forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you.' Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him.18Then his brothers also wept, fell down before him, and said, "We are here as your slaves."19But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God?20Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.21So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones." In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them.

I love this story.

I’ve heard many people refer to it as a story about forgiveness. They say we should look to Joseph as an example of how we should forgive others as God forgives us our sins.

I say yes, we should indeed look to Joseph as an example as to how we should treat others. It is indeed a lesson to us from God. But it is not about forgiveness.

Let’s take a closer look.

First of all, you gotta know the whole story. For brevity’s sake, I’m going to assume y’all do. You’ve seen Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. "Poor, poor Joseph, whatcha gonna do." This is at the very end, Joseph has come through every trial and tribulation with flying colors (no pun intended), and they all lived happily ever after.

But wait. The brothers, after all that, are still plotting and scheming against their brother. He has just saved their hides – and the hides of the entire Nation of Israel – and they’re still coming up with lies to protect themselves. Will they ever learn?

And Joseph sees right through this. Joseph knows it’s a lie. That’s why he weeps. He knows they still haven’t “got it.” Even after they have seen God’s great power, they still don’t get it.

Now, many of my colleagues – other preachers of the Word – will say that Joseph forgives the brothers. I have to disagree. The word “forgiveness” isn’t there. I even looked at the Hebrew; it’s just not there. Joseph does NOT forgive them. He says instead, “What’s to forgive.”

“Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good.”

He’s not sugar-coating it. Yes, what the brothers did was absolutely wrong, no ifs ands or buts. According to all human logic, Joseph would be completely justified to exact some kind of retribution. He does not.

He could have said, “You know what? You need to make yourselves right with God, and then it will be fine.” He does not even say that.

Instead, he shows that their actions, though evil from a human perspective, served a greater good.

And that makes me wonder. If an act so heinous as selling your brother as a slave is actually within God’s will, how many more actions, in the “gray area” of sin—or even right over that line into the black—have I accused my sisters and brothers of, that seems obviously wrong to me, but were perhaps stepping stones to greater good in God’s vast, eternal plan.

The Bible says a lot of things. It seems to me that the more something gets repeated in the Bible, the more important it is. Kinda like God really wants to make sure you hear it, so he says it a whole bunch of times in a whole bunch of ways.

And this is just another one of those instances of one of the most common lessons in the Bible: judge not.
I’m not saying that the moral of this story is that it’s okay to sell your brother into slavery. I certainly don’t think God is telling us that it’s okay to sin. To me, it is quite clearly this: God’s job is to judge good and evil. Our job is to love, and leave the rest in God’s hand.

That may be hard to do sometimes. I don’t know if I’d be able to ignore a great big whopper like Joseph’s brothers committed, if I were the victim. I might be able to forgive, but could I really shrug it off, and turn it over to God like Joseph did?

And that is exactly what God calls us to do. It’s not enough to forgive, because in forgiving, we label it a sin, and we take on part of God’s job, of judging. “Forgive and forget” is the world’s way of dealing with wrong-doing. As is so often the case, God calls us to a higher standard. We forget, and we give it to God to forgive.

Many will say that the Old Testament is the Law and the New Testament is the Gospel. That is not true. There are plenty of instances of Law in the New Testament, and plenty of Gospel in the Old. More importantly, there’s a lot that’s both at the same time. This is an example of that:

It’s law: God is reminding us that it is not our job to judge. And yet it’s gospel: we don’t have to judge – that’s up to God.

And since we know we have an Advocate—since we know we have Christ Jesus in our corner—that, my sisters and brothers, is mighty good news.

Amen.

 

[tribesman]

...It’s law: God is reminding us that it is not our job to judge. And yet it’s gospel: we don’t have to judge – that’s up to God....

Apart from several things that I thought your post really got spot on, I need to ask if you by saying "t is not our job to judge" mean that we are not to judge - categorically and generally speaking, without considering any context? I hope not, for if so, you just made an unrighteous judgment. I can only see that Jesus condemns unrighteous judgment. Never its counterpart. We all judge somehow, the only question that matters is if our judgment is righteous or not. To refuse to make righteous judgment, when one can do so, would equal having made unrighteous judgment.

Jesus said:

John.7

[24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Ps.37

[28] For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Apart from several things that I thought your post really got spot on, I need to ask if you by saying "t is not our job to judge" mean that we are not to judge - categorically and generally speaking, without considering any context? I hope not, for if so, you just made an unrighteous judgment. I can only see that Jesus condemns unrighteous judgment. Never its counterpart. We all judge somehow, the only question that matters is if our judgment is righteous or not. To refuse to make righteous judgment, when one can do so, would equal having made unrighteous judgment.

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

We absolutely must judge our own actions. When faced with a decision or temptation, yes, we must judge with righteous judgment if that action is godly or not, and choose the correct path.

In every instance of Scripture where God tells us to judge, it is clear that that judgment is for ourselves only. God does hold us responsible for our own actions. (Though the Christian in me is quick to add that, even when we screw up, Jesus is ready to forgive.)

We judge ourselves, as God judges us. We do not judge the actions or behaviors of others; only God has the right to do that. This is what Scripture says, repeatedly. The sermon above is only one of dozens, maybe hundreds of examples in the Bible. And like I said, the more something is repeated, the more important I think it is.

Of course, I've screwed that one up more times than I can count, too. I often catch myself judging others. I find myself telling other people what is right and wrong, and implying that this action or that action is a sin. In a way, this entire thread treads that thin ice: am I convicting you and others of sinning? I hope you all see it as a general revelation, and not as finger pointing. Because if I'm just doing it for finger-pointing, then I am guilty of the sin of Soddom: puffing myself up and being haughty, as if I had the right to judge. I hope you and others reading recognize that I convict myself with this sermon. I am as guilty as anyone. As this finger points outward, three more point inward. Mea culpa maxima.

 

[tribesman]

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

We absolutely must judge our own actions. When faced with a decision or temptation, yes, we must judge with righteous judgment if that action is godly or not, and choose the correct path.

In every instance of Scripture where God tells us to judge, it is clear that that judgment is for ourselves only. God does hold us responsible for our own actions. (Though the Christian in me is quick to add that, even when we screw up, Jesus is ready to forgive.)

We judge ourselves, as God judges us. We do not judge the actions or behaviors of others; only God has the right to do that. This is what Scripture says, repeatedly. The sermon above is only one of dozens, maybe hundreds of examples in the Bible. And like I said, the more something is repeated, the more important I think it is.

Of course, I've screwed that one up more times than I can count, too. I often catch myself judging others. I find myself telling other people what is right and wrong, and implying that this action or that action is a sin. In a way, this entire thread treads that thin ice: am I convicting you and others of sinning? I hope you all see it as a general revelation, and not as finger pointing. Because if I'm just doing it for finger-pointing, then I am guilty of the sin of Soddom: puffing myself up and being haughty, as if I had the right to judge. I hope you and others reading recognize that I convict myself with this sermon. I am as guilty as anyone. As this finger points outward, three more point inward. Mea culpa maxima.

Not ONLY our own actions. We must also judge the actions of others, of the wicked and the just, when applicable. Scripture is full of examples of this, from beginning to end. Here are two: John the baptist losed his head because he righteously judged the wicked works of the court house of his day. Paul judged that those who are ignorant about the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, are lost. So, we are to judge the words and actions of others as well, when applicable, and we need to see to it that out judgments are righteous, else this scripture applies:

Prov.17

[15] He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

This is how serious this matter is, a matter of life or death.

 

[RedTent]

How many years and years of tears understanding all you are pointing out about God would have saved me! There were times I literally went to bed with grief over hurts done me, so frustrated because all I tried to do about them didn’t work. If I would have understood I could have simply loved the people while I understood the sin, and let God handle it

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Not ONLY our own actions. We must also judge the actions of others, of the wicked and the just, when applicable.

No, not according to God. Well, you may if you want, but my understanding of Scripture is that we are NOT to do this.

Scripture is full of examples of this, from beginning to end.

You're going to have to back that up.

Here are two: John the baptist losed his head because he righteously judged the wicked works of the court house of his day.

And where does it say that it was a good thing that he did? (And, by the way, he "lost" his head, not "losed" it.)

Paul judged that those who are ignorant about the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the gospel, are lost.

First of all, you need to provide BCV, although I think I know which passage(s) you're talking about.

Secondly, where does it say that this is what God tells us to do. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's good. If that were the case, then sleeping around would be okay, because David did that a lot. The Bible is full of example of what we are NOT supposed to do. If you read it thinking you already know what it's going to say, you're gonna get a very different understanding than if you step back and let Scripture interpret Scripture. Since Scripture -- both old and new -- continually harps on us not to judge others, I have to believe that those passages that talk about judging others are not proscriptive but descriptive. Otherwise, God would be contradicting himself, and I don't think God would ever contradict himself.

Do you? If you think those passages say that God tells us to judge others, than you are believing that God contradicts himself, and/or you pick and choose which passages to believe. Personally, I prefer to take an interpretation of Scripture which allows all of Scripture to agree with itself, rather than have some passages disagree with others.

But that's just me. Here I go, judging you. If you want to have a salad bar belief, that is your right. I cannot judge you for that. I wish you the best. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from and why.


So, we are to judge the words and actions of others as well, when applicable, and we need to see to it that out judgments are righteous, else this scripture applies:


This is how serious this matter is, a matter of life or death.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Sorry, I posted before I finished, and it was more than 5 minutes before I noticed, so I couldn't edit ... the last 2 lines were not mine but were Tribesman's, and I hope no one got confused.

 

[tribesman]

TheGrungeDiva,

I am running out of time here, might be back tomorrow or later with more inputs/comments.

Just sharing this now:

No, not according to God. Well, you may if you want, but my understanding of Scripture is that we are NOT to do this...

...The Bible is full of example of what we are NOT supposed to do. If you read it thinking you already know what it's going to say, you're gonna get a very different understanding than if you step back anlet Scripture interpret Scripture. Since Scripture -- both old and new -- continually harps on us not to judge others, I have to believe that those passages that talk about judging others are not proscriptive but descriptive. Otherwise, God would be contradicting himself, and I don't think God would ever contradict himself.

When I read this and remember your many other posts at this forum I must say that your statements about "let Scripture interpret Scripture" or "all scripture" (which of course is the right to do - but it is always assumed that one does so systematically) often, but not always, seems very far from your major theological standpoints.

BY THE WAY, if I am not mistaken, I think you have also expressed much Bible criticism and related views. You have a way of sometimes almost dumping the Bible totally, if it suits your "belief system" (where denial of hell is part, correct me if mistaken) while at other times, when it suits same system, you strive to be careful to make a substantial biblical exegesis. Not to mention your liberal views on politics and other issues. With this in mind, when you are talking about judging, I wonder if you really have enough objectivity to respect the fact that there are many aspects, biblically speaking - OT & NT - of that term that you might easily overlook or even "opt out".

So far, you have not yet come up with any other usage of the term than that which applies to one's personal actions. This falls far short of the usage of the term seen in the light of scripture interpreted by scripture and "all scripture". Why, for example, do you leave out the judgments done in theocratic Israel and its continuous tradition judgment made by the ruling elders of the "Beit Din", or early NT churches? Or the rule reiterated by Christ Himself in Matthew 18:15-17? These are important factors of making righteous judgment.

"Contradictions" is found not so much when seeing two statements that appears to be saying two contrary things, but from not seeing the whole picture of the context they were written in and taking ALL aspects of the matter into correct relevance.

The scripture I was referring to on Paul is found in Rom.9:30-33,10:1-4.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I am running out of time here, might be back tomorrow or later with more inputs/comments.

First of all, let me say thank you for your response which was polite and respectful. You and I may never agree on every point of theology, but I am pleased to see that we can discuss them without sinking to the name-calling that often comes -- on both side -- with such hot-button issues. Thank you.

When I read this and remember your many other posts at this forum I must say that your statements about "let Scripture interpret Scripture" or "all scripture" (which of course is the right to do - but it is always assumed that one does so systematically) often, but not always, seems very far from your major theological standpoints.

It's funny you should say that. I have always had a liberal political view. When I was growing up, I just assumed that all Christians were liberal, because that's what I saw in Scripture, and all the Christians around me saw the same thing. This is what our pastors preached, and I never knew any other way of being Christian. I was in high school before I realized that there was anyone who was both Christian and conservative politically, and it struck me as a complete cognitive dissonance.

So to me, for you to claim that you "let Scripture interpret Scripture," or "understand Scripture in the context of the whole of Scripture," and still hold to the beliefs I've seen from you in other threads, well, that seems contradictory to me. Point of view makes a big difference.

And I accidentally hit "submit" so now I only have 5 minutes to edit before it "times out" on me, so I'll do the rest in another post.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Tribesman says:

You have a way of sometimes almost dumping the Bible totally, if it suits your "belief system"

I would never "dump the Bible totally." I may dump a traditional interpretation of Scripture totally, if that traditional interpretation is in need of dumping. We all know examples, but here's just one:

Several hundreds of years ago, people interpreted Scripture in such a way that they thought the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it. Of course, the Bible never says that, per se, but that was how it was understood. Anyone who claimed otherwise was committing heresy.

Today, most humans agree that the earth is round, and revolves around the sun. There is no contradiction with this astronomy and the Bible. People did not have to "dump the Bible" to accept scientific evidence ... they just had to dump the traditional interpretation of the day.

So, no, I am not "dumping the Bible." I may reject an interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a different understanding of it. And if that interpretation is one which you accept, you might see it, from your point of view, as "dumping the Bible." Just as the Church saw Gallileo as a heretic for thinking the earth revolved around the sun.

I do not dump interpretations lightly. Although my roots are Lutheran (sola Scriptura), I do appreciate the importance of Tradition. I won't throw out a traditional interpretation just because I don't like it. I would never throw out a traditional interpretation unless: (1) that traditional interpretation conflicted with some other Truth-with-a-capital-T, AND (2) there was some Scripture to support another interpretation that is still faithful to the text, if not to the tradition. See, I accept the importance of tradition, but it would never trump Scripture.

Here's an example. A lot of liberals say that the restrictions about marriage and fidelity are all old-school, and that humans are not really designed to be faithful to one partner for their whole life. They will say that in a "post-modern world," such institutions are useless. While that may tickle my interest -- a part of me might like the opportunity to keep the stability of my legal marriage but still get to play around, who wouldn't? -- there is no real way to interpret Scripture to support such. At least, I have not heard any compelling interpretations that don't, as you say, "throw away Scripture." So there is one place I draw the line.

Here's the thing: the ULTIMATE Truth is that God is Love. Any interpretation that would lead to a contradiction of that one simple statement HAS to be false. If you tell me that God is a mean and vindictive being, because just look at what he does in the Old Testament, smiting all those people just for not being Jewish, well, I'm going to tell you that your interpretation of those passages are wrong. I'm not going to say that the BIBLE is wrong, but that your understanding of those passages are. Because God being "mean and vindictive" contradicts our premise. Right?

So our proverbial "you" might think I'm saying the Bible is wrong, because all "your" life "you've" been told that that's what the Bible says. You, tribesman, are much smarter than our proverbial "you," and a much more mature Christian, so you understand as a man, not as a child. Right? I hope that explains what I'm trying to say.

All of my views stem from this same place. I will never say the Bible is "wrong." I may say your interpretation, or another person's interpretation, or even every interpretation that has been offered so far, is wrong, but that is only because such interpretations cannot be true without contradicting God's greatness, omniscience, and benevolence. If you compromise any of those, what good is it? You're not really worshiping God any more, if you turn him into a limited being, right?

So far, you have not yet come up with any other usage of the term than that which applies to one's personal actions.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Which term are you referring to?

"Contradictions" is found not so much when seeing two statements that appears to be saying two contrary things, but from not seeing the whole picture of the context they were written in and taking ALL aspects of the matter into correct relevance.

And I whole-heartedly agree with this. I will give examples of two statements that contradict, but just for an example, because I can't quote the entire Bible, it would take too long, and I don't think the post allows that much text

Again, thank you for your comments and demeanor, and I hope I have replied in kind with respect and love. I look forward to any other comments you may have.

 

[Grandpa]

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Romans 5:3-5
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

James 1:17-21
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

 

[tribesman]

First of all, let me say thank you for your response which was polite and respectful. You and I may never agree on every point of theology, but I am pleased to see that we can discuss them without sinking to the name-calling that often comes -- on both side -- with such hot-button issues. Thank you.

We have kept it that way until now, and hopefully onwards. I want to thank you for not being easily offended.

I would never "dump the Bible totally." I may dump a traditional interpretation of Scripture totally, if that traditional interpretation is in need of dumping. We all know examples, but here's just one:

Several hundreds of years ago, people interpreted Scripture in such a way that they thought the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it. Of course, the Bible never says that, per se, but that was how it was understood. Anyone who claimed otherwise was committing heresy.

Today, most humans agree that the earth is round, and revolves around the sun. There is no contradiction with this astronomy and the Bible. People did not have to "dump the Bible" to accept scientific evidence ... they just had to dump the traditional interpretation of the day.

Yes, but that is a more extreme example. Yet it was right to point out the fact that the earth is not flat. Actually there's a scripture that could be interpreted as the earth being round (Isaiah 40:21-22).

So, no, I am not "dumping the Bible." I may reject an interpretation of Scripture, in favor of a different understanding of it. And if that interpretation is one which you accept, you might see it, from your point of view, as "dumping the Bible." Just as the Church saw Gallileo as a heretic for thinking the earth revolved around the sun.

I do not dump interpretations lightly. Although my roots are Lutheran (sola Scriptura), I do appreciate the importance of Tradition. I won't throw out a traditional interpretation just because I don't like it. I would never throw out a traditional interpretation unless: (1) that traditional interpretation conflicted with some other Truth-with-a-capital-T, AND (2) there was some Scripture to support another interpretation that is still faithful to the text, if not to the tradition. See, I accept the importance of tradition, but it would never trump Scripture.

Since a few decades there's a disastrous trend in some circles of relativizing and anachronizing scripture in order to suit political agenda and gain lobby support from various groups. Examples include feminist and HBTQ theology (sorry, we got there again - but I have to name it, since it is so striking) where biblical and historical facts are either outright denied or twisted into anachronisms to suit the taste of the day. THAT, my friend, is unacceptable. To test a doctrine and practice it should have a firm foundation in both testaments and also historical records (primarily church history) to back it up. There are fewer newcomers than one might think. If one chooses to neglect these factors, then I think its clear that those who do so have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that they are NOT objective in their outlook.

Here's an example. A lot of liberals say that the restrictions about marriage and fidelity are all old-school, and that humans are not really designed to be faithful to one partner for their whole life. They will say that in a "post-modern world," such institutions are useless. While that may tickle my interest -- a part of me might like the opportunity to keep the stability of my legal marriage but still get to play around, who wouldn't? -- there is no real way to interpret Scripture to support such. At least, I have not heard any compelling interpretations that don't, as you say, "throw away Scripture." So there is one place I draw the line.

I think a good christian wouldn't That said, I also think that those who outright deny polygyny (a family of one husband with plural wives) might have some trouble with the perspective of "scripture alone", since that lifestyle was actually practiced in both OT and NT times and also long time after that in "biblical" regions, and was never clearly condemned as such. But then comes questions about cultural and traditional values and how to adopt christian moral into your own culture. This is one of the great challenges of today. Western christianity has become much like the capitalism which have grown out of it, a not so careful apparatus with many demands and expectations on people who embrace it. Something which is not always an easy matter.

We who live in lands who either had a western mission among us, or had to deal with the political consequences of NOT allowing western missions, all had to put up with "the christian ideal" of the west, which most often was stereotype. You see, in many african and middle east lands the west is "chistian", regardless of it being secular or religious, regardless whether it presents to us Marilyn Monroe and Andy Warhol or MLK and Mother Teresa.. In that regard I can understand american "counter culture" just as much I can understand tchadian tribesmen who meet western missionaries who tells them about "how to live". It seems that there are so many other aspects of christendom that are far more important than such trivialities as how people choose to get and stay together. But, then again: we need to go back to scripture and in it dig deep to find the ideal way. I believe many times we have failed to do that. ... This was many words, hope you got me somehow

Here's the thing: the ULTIMATE Truth is that God is Love. Any interpretation that would lead to a contradiction of that one simple statement HAS to be false. If you tell me that God is a mean and vindictive being, because just look at what he does in the Old Testament, smiting all those people just for not being Jewish, well, I'm going to tell you that your interpretation of those passages are wrong. I'm not going to say that the BIBLE is wrong, but that your understanding of those passages are. Because God being "mean and vindictive" contradicts our premise. Right?

... I will give examples of two statements that contradict, but just for an example, because I can't quote the entire Bible, it would take too long, and I don't think the post allows that much text.

I do not see God "changing" a slightest tiny bit from the OT to NT. "Mean" has never been attributed to God, but hatred has. I think scripture (OT/NT) is overly clear that God not only has hatred but also does indeed hate some people. This does not in any wise contradict or make void the fact that God is love - but it does create a "head problem" for many people and for our understanding, since it appear to be a contradiction. But it is not an actual contradiction. These words of God are equally true and are somehow reconciled, even if it surpasses our understanding. They belong to what Luther(!) called the hidden, or unrevealed, God. Herein are mysteries that we can not comprehend in full. This then shows more how limited our views on God are, because we tend to measure God after man and his love/hatred, then it shows God's love - and wrath - as both are holy and perfect (which our love and hatred are not). Then again, on-topic, this is also about making JUDGMENT. People who are interested in the Bible will make JUDGMENTS on what the Bible says. Although "calvinist" I am not of the notion "the Bible NEVER contradict itself". I believe it is clear that, for our understanding, there can be found "contradictions" in the Bible. That does not tell us anything about God, it just shows us that we are not to confuse our wrestling with the word of God with His character. Something which MOST Bible readers does and, sad enough, build their beliefs on.

So our proverbial "you" might think I'm saying the Bible is wrong, because all "your" life "you've" been told that that's what the Bible says. You, tribesman, are much smarter than our proverbial "you," and a much more mature Christian, so you understand as a man, not as a child. Right? I hope that explains what I'm trying to say.

Got you. I believe it is of very great importance to be able to change one's views. I have done it several times, some of them on major biblical topics. I even changed back some of them. As with everything else it is a learning process and the light of the Spirit on the word will always get through when God has had His way with out growth and maturity.

All of my views stem from this same place. I will never say the Bible is "wrong." I may say your interpretation, or another person's interpretation, or even every interpretation that has been offered so far, is wrong, but that is only because such interpretations cannot be true without contradicting God's greatness, omniscience, and benevolence. If you compromise any of those, what good is it? You're not really worshiping God any more, if you turn him into a limited being, right?

But if the Bible cannot be trusted in full, isn't that the same thing as saying it is wrong?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Which term are you referring to?

About the topic:judgment, of course.

Again, thank you for your comments and demeanor, and I hope I have replied in kind with respect and love. I look forward to any other comments you may have.

Likewise.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Tribesman: There is much in your post I agree with, and also much food for thought.

Let me just refer to a few comments.

They belong to what Luther(!) called the hidden, or unrevealed, God. Herein are mysteries that we can not comprehend in full. This then shows more how limited our views on God are, because we tend to measure God after man and his love/hatred, then it shows God's love - and wrath - as both are holy and perfect (which our love and hatred are not). Then again, on-topic, this is also about making JUDGMENT. People who are interested in the Bible will make JUDGMENTS on what the Bible says. Although "calvinist" I am not of the notion "the Bible NEVER contradict itself". I believe it is clear that, for our understanding, there can be found "contradictions" in the Bible. That does not tell us anything about God, it just shows us that we are not to confuse our wrestling with the word of God with His character. Something which MOST Bible readers does and, sad enough, build their beliefs on.

Excellent. Can't add anything to what you said; just think it bears repeating.

But if the Bible cannot be trusted in full, isn't that the same thing as saying it is wrong?

And again, I'm not saying the Bible cannot be trusted: I'm saying interpretations of the Bible cannot be trusted. And every translation, every version, every human telling of the Bible is an interpretation.

And ultimately, I hope you do not put your trust in the Bible. You put your trust in the Lord. Yes, we learn about the Lord from the Bible. But they are not the same thing. I fear too many Christians seem to have turned the Bible into an idol, and this is no less serious than any other idolatry.

I trust the Bible, but not more than I trust God. If there is ever a contradiction, God trumps the Bible any day of the week.

 

[tribesman]

...And again, I'm not saying the Bible cannot be trusted: I'm saying interpretations of the Bible cannot be trusted. And every translation, every version, every human telling of the Bible is an interpretation.

You are right about that translations, versions and interpretations have their different sides and that no interpretation is problem-free (which is exactly how it should be, God save us from "problem-free interpretations"!).

If really interested, one has to go to the original texts (and its varying manuscripts) and dig deep into them. It is a lot of work to do. As for myself I have done this extensive work only partly some years ago (have lost some of it with time) and have also consulted "experts", of more or less credible standing, for the remainder.

However I brought this up since you are into Bible criticism. What I mean is that with that view in mind, somewhere, somehow, a line has to be drawn for what the text is trying to tell its addressee/s and how much "authenticity" one wants to give the text, as such. I find this approach too much problematic.

Since you're from the lutheran tradition you might know that conservative lutheranism is placing a very high emphasis on the "material principle", that is, the text in itself. Common scriptural quotes would be "it is written", said by Jesus when tempted by satan and "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

This is a very "jewish" way of approaching scripture as something as holy itself, in deed a holy writ. This in no way denies the fact that we do have to interpret scripture, but it tells us of a perspective where every "jot and tittle" is respected as such. A Bible "criticist" on the other hand must consequently have to "pick and choose", as you put it.

And ultimately, I hope you do not put your trust in the Bible. You put your trust in the Lord. Yes, we learn about the Lord from the Bible. But they are not the same thing. I fear too many Christians seem to have turned the Bible into an idol, and this is no less serious than any other idolatry.

I trust the Bible, but not more than I trust God. If there is ever a contradiction, God trumps the Bible any day of the week.

So here is the reconciliation part. If one is into Bible criticism, then ultimately the time comes when one has to "choose" between that which is not revealed in scripture or scripture itself. What else can decide this choosing factor than the arbitrary and subjective views of the individual?

Yes, the trust must be in the Lord. And the Lord has been revealed to us men through the words written in the Bible. Words that we can never in all fully understand (at least not in the here and now). I believe it is primarily for us to receive these words, gladly and with trust, not to let our own thoughts about these words letting us shape our image of God too much. Let God be God. Even if it can be offensive to men.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Thank you, again, for your thought-provoking, respectful words that challenge without demeaning.

So here is the reconciliation part. If one is into Bible criticism, then ultimately the time comes when one has to "choose" between that which is not revealed in scripture or scripture itself. What else can decide this choosing factor than the arbitrary and subjective views of the individual?

Ah, yes, but there IS something else. I said before my roots were Lutheran, but I have since "dabbled" (not sure that's the word) in many different traditions, among them Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian.

The Episcopal Church has the "three legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. A stool with only two legs (or one) would be unstable, and you would fall. Only one with three legs is solid and stands. Or, to put it more modernly: God gave us brains, he expects us to use them.

Then the Methodist Church (which grew out of the Episcopal, as you may be aware) added a fourth "leg:" Experience. Out of this tradition came most of the American Pentecostal movement, with God being active in our lives not just 2-6 thousand years ago, but recognizing that God still speaks today, and accepting today's revelations as perhaps not equally valid, but worth consideration.

There is much to be said for all of these traditions. All of them reflect exactly what you and I have noticed: Scripture requires interpretation. Different churches have come down differently on how (or whom) to trust for that interpretation.

I have said this before on this board, and I will say it again, because I believe these words to be inspired: I do not believe in God because of what is written in some book. I believe in God because of what is written on my heart.

Ultimately, Scripture can only take you so far. Scripture is not God. Scripture is a vehicle that can lead you towards God, but it is not a substitute for God. A vehicle requires some form of energy or power to make it move, some knowledge to steer it in the right direction, and a good road on which to travel. In my experience, too many Christians are worshiping the vehicle, and not God. And they're sitting in the back seat of a car that has run out of gas in the middle of a field.

 

[tribesman]

Thank you, again, for your thought-provoking, respectful words that challenge without demeaning.

Ah, yes, but there IS something else. I said before my roots were Lutheran, but I have since "dabbled" (not sure that's the word) in many different traditions, among them Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian.

The Episcopal Church has the "three legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. A stool with only two legs (or one) would be unstable, and you would fall. Only one with three legs is solid and stands. Or, to put it more modernly: God gave us brains, he expects us to use them.

Then the Methodist Church (which grew out of the Episcopal, as you may be aware) added a fourth "leg:" Experience. Out of this tradition came most of the American Pentecostal movement, with God being active in our lives not just 2-6 thousand years ago, but recognizing that God still speaks today, and accepting today's revelations as perhaps not equally valid, but worth consideration.

There is much to be said for all of these traditions. All of them reflect exactly what you and I have noticed: Scripture requires interpretation. Different churches have come down differently on how (or whom) to trust for that interpretation.

*BUMP* That was some elaboration there. Interestingly, I was baptized by a lutheran priest just a few days old in the hospital where I was born. However, I have never been active in a lutheran church or taken communion there. Traditionally reformed, I do subscribe to the anglican/episcopalian 39 articles in full, plus the office of bishop and apostolic sucession and I'm very close to the episcopalian views of the sacraments (but even closer to the lutheran view). However I do not subscribe to some of the liturgy and traditions of episcopalianism. Besides I think they have gone way off into liberalism, ecumenism and antinomianism (though the situation is better in anglican Africa). There are "continuation groups" around, which are better IMO, but these are heavily traditionalist.