Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 221 (229233)
08-03-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by GDR
08-03-2005 1:39 PM


Re: One last thought
So then you don't believe that God tested Abraham's faith by commanding him to sacrifice his son?
Not literally I don't. I contend that it is metaphor for the fact that our children are not our's to own but a gift from God and that we are to acknowledge they are His and not ours.
As CK says, God doesn't have to test us. He knows our hearts better than we do ourselves.
It's for us, not Himself. He does it to establish the point in Abraham's mind and especially ours reading about it, starting with teaching us that true faith is absolute surrender of everything we have and are to God. Absolute life and death surrender. It makes undeniably real the "acknowledging" that our children are His and not ours. If it's only a metaphor where's the life-and-death cutting edge of faith Christian martyrs have always been called to meet? I think it helps to cure us of a too-soft idea of faith to read about the martyrs. Missionary stories and biographies of other Christian greats are often good for the same reason.
Also, the sacrifice of Isaac is full of prophetic implications. It is a foreshadowing of God's sacrifice of His own Son. It was in fact done on Mt. Moriah, the very location which later was the threshing floor that David bought from Ornan the Jebusite, and yet later the location of the temple mount in Jerusalem. The substitute of the ram in the thicket for Isaac is also prophetic of the Lamb of God, the sacrifice provided by God Himself in our place; and a threshing floor also has symbolic prophetic meaning -- the sifting of the grain from the chaff in the final Harvest which begins with the crucifixion of Christ. Reality in the Bible IS metaphor that actual de-reifying metaphor only destroys. There are many things in the OT that must be taken literally if one is to fully appreciate the reality of other things, especially the redemption, the resurrection, the second coming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 1:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2005 2:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 120 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 2:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 121 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 3:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 221 (229311)
08-03-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by GDR
08-03-2005 3:46 PM


Re: One last thought
I radically disagree with you, but we can cordially agree to disagree I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 3:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 4:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 123 of 221 (229313)
08-03-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 2:47 PM


Re: One last thought
Not one word I said involved anybody seeking martyrdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 2:47 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 4:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 221 (229325)
08-03-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ramoss
08-03-2005 2:39 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
Certainly does have meaning after the fact, as it ties the whole picture together. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is a strand of messianic interpretation among the rabbis that recognizes the connection. After all, Jews were the first Christians, and they recognized the prophecies -- at least some did dimly, and then Matthew wrote about them, specifically to the Jews.
Yes, thanks for reminding me about the human sacrifice element of the event too. That IS another meaning -- the event is rich in meaning. Abraham lived among people who performed human sacrifices of their own children. In fact this helps make it understandable how Abraham, who was very new in his walk with the one true God, could so resignedly accede to the sacrifice of his own son, not fully knowing the character of God yet. The lesson was brought home to him dramatically as God prevented him from doing it, that human sacrifice was not required by the Lord of Hosts, and as the story of Israel unfolds He makes it more clear that human sacrifice was an abomination to Him.
But why were people sacrificing their children to God? It seems that they intuitively knew in their fallen confused way that expiation of sin required more than the sacrifice of animals. Yet God graciously received the sacrifice of animals. The sacrifice of a fallen human being could not expiate anything. So the animal sacrificial system He gave the Israelites through Moses carefully delineates what the exacting requirements are -- the purity of the animal -- blemish-free -- is paramount, foreshadowing the sinless Savior. The sacrificial system too is rich in -- the word really isn't prophecy, it's typology -- the sacrifice of Isaac was a TYPE of the sacrifice of Christ, as was the gift of the ram etc., and so are many elements of the animal sacrifices rquired of Israel, and also the details of the structure of the tabernacle, all are types of Christ.
ANYWAY, it isn't an either-or in Christian theology. BOTH are true meanings of the sacrifice of Isaac.
Edits to correct many little errors.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-03-2005 04:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2005 2:39 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 4:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 129 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2005 5:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 221 (229358)
08-03-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by GDR
08-03-2005 4:24 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
When we get away from the literal vs metaphorical discussion I sure think you have some great insights. Great post!
Thank you. It's just from years of hearing good preaching and reading good books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 4:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 221 (229373)
08-03-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 4:09 PM


Re: One last thought
Fair enough. But it amounts to the same thing, imo. The point was about testing God versus determining his will for our lives. Some of the OT stories present a view of God that is more akin to a capricious Greek or Roman God who is out to trick his subjects rather than help them find their way. I suspect the story of Abraham and Isaac tells us more about Abraham and the culture he was living in - where human sacrifice was sometimes practiced - than it tells us about God. It wouldn't have been the first time that Abraham misunderstood what God wanted him to do, would it? In fact, Abraham nearly always got it wrong the first time regarding God's will, didn't he? What makes you think that this time he was on the mark?
I think maybe my previous answer to ramoss answers much of what you are saying, Message 125, about the culture he was living in. But if you read that, then you know that I disagree that the story of the sacrifice of Isaac tells us less about God than the culture, as it is really about God's transcendance of the culture, and the revelation of His true nature. Each lesson He gives to Abraham teaches him the difference between His true character and the false understanding of Him that fallen humanity all around him was pursuing and that his own family practiced. Abraham learns for instance that God's promise is absolutely trustworthy even if you have to wait years for it to come true, by his failure to trust in His promise of an heir by Sarah and having a son by Hagar, the "child of the flesh" rather than "the child of the promise." He learns and his faith grows. God never abandons him. Abraham is called to a relationship with the true God away from the confused ideas of God exhibited in the common idolatrous practices and human sacrifices, so that the world too could ultimately learn the true nature of God from his experiences and the experience of the children of Israel, and especially in His gift of His Son which only really makes sense in light of the whole story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 4:09 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 5:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 221 (229389)
08-03-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 5:38 PM


Re: One last thought
Well, I can agree to disagree with you too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 5:38 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 10:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 221 (229394)
08-03-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by GDR
08-03-2005 5:35 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
I don't see Faith as taking it out of context at all. As a matter of fact I see it as being very much in context. It is a continuing theme of OT scripture of blood sacrifice. This story of Abraham is as I read it, is God metaphorically telling the people of that era that human sacrifice is wrong and that it should stop. Christ was the culmination and the final sacrifice.
Yes, you get the basic idea and that we can agree on. But it just occurred to me to ask you this question: Since you say it's metaphorical and that it had a message for the "people of that era" about the wrongness of human sacrifice, how do you picture this story coming about? Apparently you regard the whole story of Abraham's actually going with Isaac to the mountain as fiction, so are you imagining Abraham making up this story and telling it around the campfire or something like that? Do you think of it as inspired in him by God? How do you think he told it to his family and his servants or whoever he told it to? Did he describe it as if it had really happened, which is how the Bible recounts it? Wouldn't Isaac have known it didn't? And the servant who supposedly went with them according to the story? Why if he told it as merely a story, did it get written down as if it were a true event? I mean, he'd have had to *say* he was going to tell them an instructive parable about the nature of God, rather than telling it as a real event, and then I'd expect it to have been passed on that way too, as an instructive parable, and recorded by Moses as a parable too. Am I asking this clearly?
I mean it makes no sense to me that something would be described as real in the context of a real history and yet be a fiction in the midst of realities that are described in exactly the same narrative factual fashion. You do believe that Abraham had really lived in Ur and was really called by God to leave and did so and all that, right? And that God promised him a son and he finally had that son in old age, and none of that is metaphor, but reality, right? So how in that historical context does this story appear, told in exactly the same factual way as the historical parts, and yet you say it's a metaphor though there isn't the slightest hint that it differs in any way from every other story told in that narrative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 5:35 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 221 (229409)
08-03-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:20 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
I get your criteria but your comparison with Jesus' parables doesn't fit. The way the narrative of Abraham is told is one continuous string of events, no change in tone or factual style etc. When Jesus tells a parable he doesn't tell it in the middle of a string of real events he's also telling, it's a one-time story, and we are told that he is telling it. No comparison. It just seems that you view the story of Isaac's sacrifice as a metaphor or fiction simply because you refuse to believe it is real, and not for any reason having to do with how it is related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 221 (229561)
08-04-2005 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:34 PM


Back to the metaphor idea
It just seems that you view the story of Isaac's sacrifice as a metaphor or fiction simply because you refuse to believe it is real, and not for any reason having to do with how it is related.
It is more than that. It is totally inconsistent with the picture of God the Father painted by Christ as God incarnate. There is nothing in the testimony as given by Jesus, or any other NT author that suggest God would act in such a fashion. The Bible must be read within the context of the entire Biblical message.
Yes, that's WHY you refuse to believe it is real. But actually the NT does treat the story as real, Hebrews 11:17 for instance, as well as treating all the OT as real, never referring to any of it as anything other than factual.
I have no problem reconciling all the facets of God's character as presented in the Bible and find them all necessary to the whole. (But of course this comes from attending many Bible studies, reading many commentaries and other books, and hearing much preaching. I don't think any of us can figure it out without a lot of help.) Anyway, certainly the Bible must be read in context of the entire message but that's exactly what you are not doing. We are required to integrate all of it together and not throw any of it out just because it doesn't suit our understanding of this or that part of it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 04:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 221 (229563)
08-04-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 10:49 PM


Re: One last thought
But then we do have to agree to disagree. You have basically the same view that GDR has, that it can't be real because it appears to you to conflict with the portrait of God as father. You deny it although it is written as a factual account and understood to have been factual by the traditional Church over the centuries, and never understood to conflict with anything Jesus said or any other description of God's character. What could be more fatherly than teaching His son Abraham to trust Him completely, and that He doesn't require human sacrifice, both in a dramatic life-or-death example, and affirming Abraham's own fatherly feeling for Isaac at the same time?
I see no conflict but if you do then we just disagree.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 04:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 10:49 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 10:12 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 221 (229570)
08-04-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:29 PM


Did God reject the sacrifices?
The idea that God rejected the sacrifices at some point is simply false. He merely rejected the ritual, the outward show of them, in absence of the heart meaning of them, and is affirming in all the supposedly contrary passages the need for heart repentance and obedience for the sacrifices to fulfill their true purpose.
Historically the sacrifices continued right through the time of Jesus. His own parents offered the sacrifice of two turtledoves or pigeons for him as their firstborn (Luke 2:24, Lev. 12:8). The moneychangers were selling animals for sacrifice in the temple. The sacrifices stopped only in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and since that was the only authorized place they could be done the system ended forever at that point.
Isaiah 1:11-20 is one passage that is misinterpreted to be God's rejection of the sacrifices as such. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" says the Lord. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs or goats. ... "Bring no more futile sacrifices" ... "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean...Cease to do evil, learn to do good. Seek justice. Reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isaiah 1:11, 12, 16).
The word "futile" in the above gets across the meaning. "Vain" is the word in other translations. Meaning "empty" or meaningless. This is about doing such things in a rote way without understanding the meaning of them and while committing sins that are not repented of, not about rejecting sacrifice as such.
Matthew Henry describes the sacrifices and other observances God is condemning here as done strictly according to God's own specifications in the Law of Moses, and makes clear that the problem was the obedience to the letter only and not the spirit of the Law:
Now we should have thought these, and, no doubt, they thought themselves, a pious religious people; and yet they were far from being so, for (1.) Their hearts were empty of true devotion. They came to appear before God (v. 12), to be seen before him (so the margin reads it); they rested in the outside of the duties; they looked no further than to be seen of men, and went no further than that which men see.
And the outline commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown says the same thing:
11. God does not here absolutely disparage sacrifice, which is as old and universal as sin ( Gen 3:21 4:4 ), and sin is almost as old as the world; but sacrifice, unaccompanied with obedience of heart and life ( 1Sa 15:22 Psa 50:9-13 51:16-19 Hsa 6:6 ). Positive precepts are only means; moral obedience is the end. A foreshadowing of the gospel, when the One real sacrifice was to supersede all the shadowy ones, and "bring in everlasting righteousness" ( Psa 40:6, 7 Dan 9:24-27 Hbr 10:1-14 ).
full--to satiety; weary of
burnt offerings--burnt whole, except the blood, which was sprinkled about the altar.
fat--not to be eaten by man, but burnt on the altar ( Lev 3:4, 5, 11, 17 ).
12. appear before me--in the temple where the Shekinah, resting on the ark, was the symbol of God's presence ( Exd 23:15 Psa 42:2 ).
who hath required this--as if you were doing God a service by such hypocritical offerings ( Job 35:7 ). God did require it ( Exd 23:17 ), but not in this spirit ( Mic 6:6, 7 ).
courts--areas, which the worshippers were. None but priests entered the temple itself.
13. oblations--unbloody; "meat (old English sense, not flesh) offerings," that is, of flour, fruits, oil, &c. ( Lev 2:1-13 ). Hebrew, mincha.
incense--put upon the sacrifices, and burnt on the altar of incense. Type of prayer ( Psa 141:2 Rev 8:3 ).
new moons--observed as festivals ( Num 10:10 28:11, 14 ) with sacrifices and blowing of silver trumpets.
sabbaths--both the seventh day and the beginning and closing days of the great feasts ( Lev 23:24-39 ).
away with--bear, MAURER translates, "I cannot bear iniquity and the solemn meeting," that is, the meeting associated with iniquity--literally, the closing days of the feasts; so the great days ( Lev 23:36 Jhn 7:37 ).
14. appointed--the sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles [HENGSTENBERG]; they alone were fixed to certain times of the year.
weary-- ( Isa 43:24 ).
15. ( Psa 66:18 Pro 28:9 Lam 3:43, 44 ).
spread ... hands--in prayer ( 1Ki 8:22 ). Hebrew, "bloods," for all heinous sins, persecution of God's servants especially ( Mat 23:35 ). It was the vocation of the prophets to dispel the delusion, so contrary to the law itself ( Deu 10:16 ), that outward ritualism would satisfy God.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 05:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:29 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 221 (229677)
08-04-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by ramoss
08-04-2005 9:51 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
From a historical point of view, that is why Paul had such a hard time convincing the jews, but rather went to the fertile field of the Hellenistic Gentiles for his evanagalism. The sacrifice of someone else for your mistakes did not make sense to the Jews, particularly a human sacrifice.
Paul was converted late, long after thousands of Jews were believers in Christ. He was in fact threatening the Jewish believers and having them stoned. And a couple of decades or so after his conversion he was not trying to convince the Jews of the fact of Jesus' sacrifice expressing the sacrifices of the Old Testament, these were already Jewish believers in Christ who understood. The argument with Paul was about their wanting the Law obeyed by the Gentiles too, and Paul didn't try to talk THEM out of obeying the Law, simply showed them that it wasn't required of the Gentiles. IN any case, it had nothing whatever to do with the sacrifices. The Book of Hebrews, author unknown, WAS addressed to the Jewish believers to educate them in that theology however, showing it all from their own scriptures. Meanwhile, Paul was called by God to the Gentiles and the other apostles continued the work of evangelism among the Judean Jews and other parts of the world.
The Jews were wrong about their theology and that's what Jesus kept rebuking them for. And yet at the same time it was Jews, tens to hundreds of thousands of them who were the first Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 9:51 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 221 (229680)
08-04-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 10:12 AM


Re: One last thought
No the traditional church of the THEOLOGIANS from the church fathers down to the present. There is an unbroken line of commentary despite the errors of the Roman apostacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 10:12 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 11:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 221 (229697)
08-04-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by ramoss
08-04-2005 11:06 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
Jeepers that must mean Paul wrote the entire New Testament. That's simply a complete fabrication.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 11:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024