I, like every other human being who has considered the question, do not treat the entire Bible as authoritative.  At very least there are the passages that quote false prophets.  These passages are not authoritative, and even the staunchest literalist will not consider these biblical passages authoritative.  No one can consistently live under the authority of the Bible, because the Bible is not entirely consistent.  Gen 1:11-12, 2:4-7

"And if not, how do you come to the conclusion of who God is?"

I've experienced God.  I've talked to him.  My experience has also been informed by the Biblical account, the account which has overall and ultimately proven true in my life.  I've made the same mistake as Israel: mistreating people who are different from me without cause.  But I've also been corrected like Israel.

"And last, I'm guessing that you see the Bible as being full of errors. When you read the Bible, how do you decide which is erroneous and which is legitimate?"

I have come to view the overall story of the Bible kinda like a very poorly produced cooking show.  God's people keep baking cakes that fall until Jesus comes and does it right.  Jesus is the standard.  Moses gave a lower limit to what is acceptable.  Jesus raised the bar.  It wasn't that the law was evil.  It was just unfulfilled.  Ecclesiastes is not bad, but it's not fully good either.  If Moses taught mass murder, at least he at the same time drove home the point that God provides and that evil is serious.  Even this was a push in generally the right direction.  I could pose the same question to you: "If you see the world's body of religious literature as being full of errors, how do you decide which is erroreous and which is legitimate?"

But now that I've answered why I generally accept what I accept, we're back to you.  Why do you believe the Bible but not the very similar Babylonian stories and law codes?  What is there to set apart the Koran from the Bible (other than our cultural presuppositions)?  Why accept one and not the other?  Are we to merely believe what everyone around us believes?  A Muslim could easily change the words to that kids' song and say, "Yes, Allah loves me.  The Koran tells me so."  Why are we right and they wrong, if our reasoning is identical?

Why can't we deny that God commanded it?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/21/2005 11:06:13 PM (GMT-5)

I, like every other human being who has considered the question, do not treat the entire Bible as authoritative. 

You’re saying everyone who regards the Bible as authoritative hasn’t thought about why it’s authoritative?  That’s a strong claim to make and I can think of a few people who would make that claim false.  Don’t confuse “authoritative” with “inerrant”.  Those are two separate issues. 

At very least there are the passages that quote false prophets. 

Can you tell me which ones so I can have a look at those passages?

These passages are not authoritative, and even the staunchest literalist will not consider these biblical passages authoritative.  No one can consistently live under the authority of the Bible, because the Bible is not entirely consistent.  Gen 1:11-12, 2:4-7

Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is regarded as a quick overview of creation (like a macro view)

Genesis 2:4 through (at least) 2:25 is regarded as a more indepth view of creation.  This is more like rewinding the tape to get a more indepth picture of what took place in certain phases. So the verses you provided don’t contradict each other.  Chapters and verses were added (evidence suggests during Babylonian captivity) way after Genesis was already in written form, so why the people put the 7^th day in Chapter 2, creating a false division there, I don’t know their rationale for that.

Why do you believe the Bible but not the very similar Babylonian stories and law codes? 

I haven’t heard of the similar Babylonian stories and law codes, so I haven’t been able to evaluate them. (At this point, I probably don’t have time to.)

What is there to set apart the Koran from the Bible (other than our cultural presuppositions)?  Why accept one and not the other?  Are we to merely believe what everyone around us believes?  A Muslim could easily change the words to that kids' song and say, "Yes, Allah loves me.  The Koran tells me so."  Why are we right and they wrong, if our reasoning is identical?

This is a brief summary of many years, starting in college: Before studying any actual texts (which would have taken a long time for me to do), I listened to people (of those religions) and read about the religions.  Early in college I decided that pluralism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc.  can’t be right because of some real fundamental contradictions they posed.  All say everyone’s right, you just have to find what resonates with you.  I realized on my own, they can’t all be right when a few claim to be the only right way, so I decided that if they are right, then religion doesn’t matter; but it seemed to me that religion does matter.  Islam believed that you have to be as good as you can and hope that Allah will be merciful (that was my understanding in college… now I understand a bit more) which also basically supported the “all are fine” way of thinking.  Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life and no one can come to the Father but through me.”  That was a pretty exclusivist claim and basically shot all the others out of the water because I was thinking “what if that is true? Could I go with the other religions that feel good or should I figure out which one is right?”  Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism.  Through research and study, I’m convinced that’s correct.  I’ve studied and talked with Mormons and JW’s and those are very clearly wrong.  Mormonism is full of contradictions in their doctrine and always resort to the “it’s a mystery and I know in my heart it’s true.”  JW’s just do some pretty bad hermeneutical gymnastics to justify what they believe.  I admit, I still need to read more about Islam, but so far, I’m pretty unconvinced that they’re right.  The Koran was also written by one man who claimed to see an angel (I think) and he was the only author of the Koran whereas the Bible was written over 1300 years by different authors and I haven’t found any substantial fundamental contradictions.  All the contradictions I’ve heard have been due to superficial study.  When I’ve looked in depth, I find there are not contradictions, just misunderstandings done by those who claim there are fundamental contradictions.  I’ve already explained how I go about reading the Bible in earlier posts. 

So basically, I learn about the fundamental beliefs first, then I read their sacred texts to see if they are consistent. 

I believe the fundamental beliefs of all religions are (in a way) a summary of what’s in the sacred texts.  They’ve studied their religion much more than I ever could have.

Why can't we deny that God commanded it?

Why can we deny that God commanded it?  If we believe that it’s a mistake in the writing, we have to show that those authors were mistaken.  Otherwise we must take the text as is.  We can’t dismiss a section of the Bible just because we don’t like it or suddenly decide that part of it is myth just because we didn’t see it with our own eyes.  I admit, I very well could be wrong, but I don’t think I carry the burden of proof to prove that the authors were telling the truth. 

Perhaps unaware I've done hermeneutical gymnastics, but when it's pointed out to me, I re-evaluate my position when the evidence demands it.

If we can dismiss Mohamed because he claimed to see an angel and (his cousin) didn't write within a long tradtion of scripture, then shouldn't we dismiss Moses even more?  I think both guys had some good things to say, but I wouldn't classify either of them infallible or authoritative.  Were I to make such a claim, the burden of proof would rest on me.  You could reasonably argue against this, but I would say that we should start with as few presuppositions as possible.  The authority of the Bible is an affirmative claim that needs to be defended and shouldn't be taken for granted.

That Jesus truly was born of a virgin, lived, died, and rose again is very believable for me.  But my believing in the authority of Jesus doesn't say much about the authority of the Bible.  Jesus says that not one letter of the Law and the Prophets will pass away, but he also contradicts the Mosaic law on divorce and compares his actions to David's breaking the law when necessary.  If Jesus is our authority, I can't see how the Bible is too.  Jesus says, "You have heard it said... but I say..." implictly suggusting that the earlier teaching was not fully his.

One example of false prophecy in the Bible is Micah 2:6.  The false prophets say that Micah should not predict destruction.  But then the Bible itself tells us that these words are not God's (i.e. not authoritative).  The same happens with Moses commanding the people to kill infants and then Jesus later telling his disciples to turn the other cheek and that the least will be the greatest.  So far I've only heard three attempted reconcilings of the contradiction:  God's morality changes depending on the situation (relativism), Jesus was talking about private spirituality not the "real world" where we must kill children from time to time (marginalizing Jesus), and maybe the genocide was only against the half-human/half-"son's of God" people mentioned in Genesis (speculation).  My alternative is to not elevate the Bible to the level that only God should occupy, and allow for the possibility of inaccuracies.  In positing this alternative I don't think I am making any assumptions that bear the burden of proof; I'm just abandoning the assumptions that do bear that burden but have not been adequately defended.

You said, "I admit, I very well could be wrong, but I don’t think I carry the burden of proof to prove that the authors were telling the truth."  It seems to me that one alternative is to put the burden of proof on those who claim the authors were lying.  This means assuming that everything one hears is true until proven otherwise.  The other choice would be to stop caring about things like truth and proof.  Neither of these seems acceptable to me.  If anyone bears the burden of proof, shouldn't it be the one who makes a claim of truthfulness?  Now none of us personally bears that burden, but until we hav proof that Moses was omniscient, I think we should allow for the possibility that he got some things wrong.  Even the Bible points out times when he screwed up, and God (to my knowledge) never claims authorship of the Torah (or the Bible) as a whole.  It's Mo, Jerry, Paul, and some others whose writing God has breathed into.

If we take OT laws to be lower limits to morality (i.e. "you have to be this good"), then Jesus' teaching directly contradicts many of these laws.

I felt I should respond to this this sentence of what you wrote because it applies to our conversation.  Hope that’s alright! 

I had explained in previous posts how the majority of theologians view the OT laws vs. the NT laws: that the laws that were ceremonial were fulfilled by Jesus and the moral law still applies. 

If we can dismiss Mohamed because he claimed to see an angel and (his cousin) didn't write within a long tradtion of scripture, then shouldn't we dismiss Moses even more? 

From what I know, there are already some problems within the Koran.  First of all, the Koran doesn’t have much archaeological evidence to back up its reliability whereas the Bible does.  Secondly, there are a few discrepencies between the Bible and the Koran.  The Koran states that Abraham was not a Jew (3:67),  Jesus was made of dust as Adam was (3:59), Jesus was not crucified (4:157), and there could be no Son of God (19:34-35).  If there are discrepancies, one is false the other is true, but the question would then be, “How do we decide?”  We’d have to figure out which is more reliable in the areas that are testable.  That gets into archaeology, textual criticism, and internal consistency (keeping in mind genres in which each book is written).  I wouldn’t consider myself an expert in this at all, but that’s why I’m reading more about church history in my spare time.  Third, the Bible was composed over a period of, what, 1300 years or so.  The Koran was written by one man in less than 10 years.  I’d say that also gives a lot more credibility to the set of books (Bible) than the Koran.  I’m not saying that we should automatically dismiss the Koran simply because Mohamed claimed to see an angel.  There are many things to consider to see if he was telling the truth or not.

The authority of the Bible is an affirmative claim that needs to be defended and shouldn't be taken for granted.

The Bible tells us the history of our religion, which means it is an authoritative source in the area of history.  It is also supported by a lot of archaeology, so that shows the whole book wasn’t made up in the latter centuries.  The question here would be, “If parts of the Bible can be verified with archaeology, why would the writers interlace made-up the dialogues and monologues into the scriptures?  Additionally, can we show that they are made-up?  If we can’t show that they’re made-up, then on what grounds can we claim that they are made-up when the dialogues are written next to historical facts?”  That would be like saying, “I think Shakespeare wrote Acts I and III but I don’t believe he wrote Act II in this play.”  The burden of proving that Act II wasn’t written by Shakespeare would rest on the person making the claim.  If they provide substantial evidence to support this claim, then it would be up to those who believe the whole play was written by Shakespeare to refute the evidence if they can.  If they can’t, they must capitulate if they want to remain academically honest.

That Jesus truly was born of a virgin, lived, died, and rose again is very believable for me.  But my believing in the authority of Jesus doesn't say much about the authority of the Bible. 

How do you know what Jesus said if you can’t trust the Bible?

Jesus says that not one letter of the Law and the Prophets will pass away, but he also contradicts the Mosaic law on divorce and compares his actions to David's breaking the law when necessary.  If Jesus is our authority, I can't see how the Bible is too.  Jesus says, "You have heard it said... but I say..." implictly suggusting that the earlier teaching was not fully his.

Why would Jesus contradict himself?  If he contradicts himself, how do we justify relying on him?

One example of false prophecy in the Bible is Micah 2:6.  The false prophets say that Micah should not predict destruction.  But then the Bible itself tells us that these words are not God's (i.e. not authoritative). 

This isn’t a “false prophecy”.  It’s God quoting what the false prophets said and instructing the Israelites that they were wrong to do so.  Would you say that God didn’t say what was written in the passage?  Thus do you say that Micah was lying when he wrote this down?

The same happens with Moses commanding the people to kill infants and then Jesus later telling his disciples to turn the other cheek and that the least will be the greatest.  So far I've only heard three attempted reconcilings of the contradiction:  God's morality changes depending on the situation (relativism), Jesus was talking about private spirituality not the "real world" where we must kill children from time to time (marginalizing Jesus), and maybe the genocide was only against the half-human/half-"son's of God" people mentioned in Genesis (speculation). 

I’ll add one more speculative guess as to why God commanded this: to protect the purity of the promise.  That was absolutely necessary for the gift of redemption.  I read the “Letters from the Earth” thread (http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=9&m=54386 for a reference for anyone else reading this), and I think the others gave some good answers for this.  I agree with Muz: “And, oddly enough, if they aren't all killed/driven out, they tend to come back and bite you later on. In fact, that's what happened to the people that Israel DIDN'T drive out of the land, even though they were supposed to.” 

If you still don’t agree with them, I don’t think anything I add will convince you otherwise … not because I couldn’t, but because it seems that you take the perspective of being extremely skeptical of anything that is suggested, labeling it as speculation as if it shouldn’t even be considered.  Any possible rationale given for why God commanded something would be “speculative”.  If I’m wrong, let me know and please accept my appologies and I’ll get more in to my guess of why God would command this.

You said, "I admit, I very well could be wrong, but I don’t think I carry the burden of proof to prove that the authors were telling the truth."  It seems to me that one alternative is to put the burden of proof on those who claim the authors were lying.  This means assuming that everything one hears is true until proven otherwise. 

I do agree with that.  Innocent until proven guilty… otherwise our court systems would have a much higher conviction rate and I don’t buy into the being skeptical of everything said until the person’s statement is proved and verified beyond any doubt.  Now if someone provides a story that I find contradicts reason or other facts, or if that person has in the past shown him/herself unreliable, then yes, my level of doubt would rise accordingly… but the lower my doubt is, the higher its considerability (I think I made up a new word).

The other choice would be to stop caring about things like truth and proof.  Neither of these seems acceptable to me.  If anyone bears the burden of proof, shouldn't it be the one who makes a claim of truthfulness? 

Not necessarily, unless they claim something that contradicts reason or an already established truth (which of course go hand-in-hand).

Now none of us personally bears that burden, but until we have proof that Moses was omniscient, I think we should allow for the possibility that he got some things wrong. 

I agree it’s a possibility, but I don’t think he would purposefully lie about what God said to him or make up stories just to get the others to follow him.  God gave Moses evidence to show the others that he was God’s messenger/prophet at that time to the Israelites, as it was written.  If Moses lied about those miracles that were used to prove this to the Israelites, why would they continue in passing down the books that he wrote that contain descriptions of those miracles?

Sorry this is such a long post... it just addresses a lot of things.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/7/2005 3:50:02 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/7/2005 8:15:53 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/8/2005 1:28:15 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid, you made really good points in the first paragraph (and other places too) and sorry, I got sloppy, so I agree with what you said there.

Sahid: Hosea 6:1-3 is a lie. God himself refutes it in the rest of the chapter.

VFG: True that the Bible records a lie, but I’d say that the actual recording that the lie was spoken and that God refuted appears to be a truthful record though.  For example, say in court, if a person lies on the stand (false prophet) and the prosecutor exposes the lie (God), the court reporter writes down all that is said (the person who wrote Hosea) in the dialogue.  We would say we have good reason to believe that the court reporter reported truthfully all that was said, right?  So it’s not quite accurate to say that “Hosea 6:1-3 is a lie” itself, but “the prophets who were recorded in Hosea 6:1-3 lied, but the record in the Bible (that the lie was made) is truthful” unless we are to say that the author Hosea lied about the whole interaction: that the interaction never took place.  (Added after all this was written, I see you already agree with this… oh well, I’ll still leave it in!)

I guess here’s a good place to clarify my perspective about the Bible and what I’m arguing for:   I’m not talking about which laws and ordinances we have to follow (that’s for another time to discuss), but I take the stance that, as far as I can tell, the Bible seems to be a reliable recording of what took place; that the authors did not purposefully add anything into scripture to satisfy any self-seeking goals; that the interactions they said took place actually did take place. 

When others say, “I believe this part of the Bible but not that part of the Bible,” from my interpretation of that type of statement is that it seems that they are saying that the authors lied in their recordings or someone along the way changed something in the Bible, thus passing on a lie about the recordings. 

Thus, that is my usage of authoritative in this thread.  The writings seem to be reliable, thus authoritative at least in telling us about history, not talking about which laws to follow (yet), because it is a very comprehensive record about history which we have no other sources that tell us about history from the perspective of the Jews and Christians.  (There is, of course, other corroborating evidence that is not from the Jews or Christians, such as letters and such from ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. that seem to talk about events from their perspectives.  Some great sites I’ve found are: http://www.bible-history.com/ and http://www.christianitytoday.com/history . )  But now I realize I should have stayed away from the word “authoritative” since we both view that word a bit differently.  So how about switching to the word “reliable”?  I’d just say that it appears that the Bible is, so far, a reliable record, that if they say, “God said x,y,and z”, that we could take that claim on face value and go from there.

Sahid: If one verse in the Bible is false (and this is all we have to go on), that says absolutely nothing about any other verse.

VFG: I agree with that.  But I’d also say that a person would have to show good reason for doubting the truth-value of a verse compared to other verses, thus using good textual criticism (which I’m not at all an expert on… I just try to read on what the experts say about it).  Additionally, if a verse is false, then we’re stuck with a problem from a few other verses, such as 2 Timothy 3:16 (which you pointed out).  We’d have to decide if Paul lied about this or if someone else added this into Paul’s writings.  There would also be other passages in the NT that we’d have to consider too such as 2 Peter 1:19-21, 2 Peter 3:15-16, and Romans 3:1-2 (there are others too, I’m sure, but those are the ones that come to mind.)

Sahid: In the long period of time the Bible was compiled, passages and books were added and removed.

VFG: Could you specify a bit more of what you mean and how you came to this conclusion? 

Sahid: How do you know what Mohammed said if you can't trust the Koran?  Or do you think all his words we made up by the writer?

VFG: From what I’ve read in the Koran (which is very little… it’s kind of boring to read and very choppy… could be the translations I’ve read), I don’t believe that it was passed to Mohammed from Gabriel because there are some parts of the Koran in its recording of history that is simply wrong.  Historical evidence doesn’t support it.  But there is quite a lot of historical evidence that supports the accounts in the Bible.  So, yes, I do think that all his words were made up by Mohammed himself.  From what I know, the Koran doesn’t claim to have multiple authors… only Mohammed who was the secretary for Gabriel.

Sahid: The closest the Bible comes to claiming inerrancy is 2 Timothy 3:16.  But even here inerrancy is not claimed.

VFG: If Paul says “all scripture is God-breathed”, and we believe God does not lie or make errors (sticking only to the topic about writings), then can you clarify how you come to the conclusion that inerrancy is not claimed?

Sahid: It was no big deal to wipe out people in the name of a god.  That happened a lot.

VFG: But what about the commandment “Do not take the Lord’s name in vain”?  Sure, other cultures may have claimed a war in the name of their god when actually there was no god who ordered them to conquer another tribe.  But are we saying that God gave the commandments to Moses and at the same time, right after Moses got the commandments, he took the Lord’s name in vain when leading the Israelites into war?

I’ll get to the rest of the post later.  I think this part is long enough.  Whew!  Anyway, I enjoy discussing this as well.  Wish I had a couple more hours in the day, but oh well.  Thanks for holding through the long periods when I haven’t had time to post and I’m glad you enjoy the discussion as well!

Zach:  A few problems.  First, Christian anarchy would not lead to violence on the part of Christians, because Christians act like Christ.

Jeff:  But if the majority were Christians and only consisted of say, 70%, that would still leave 30% of the world to act with impunity.  So if only half of that 30% were law-abiding folk, then they would suffer from the unrestrained lawlessness of the 15% just like the Christians would.  Should Christians vote to subject the 15% of law-abiding non-Christians to the unrestrained lawlessness of the criminal 15%?  And what about the millions of non-voting age citizens that wouldn’t even have a say in whether they were subjected to unrestrained violence?  And some of those under-voting-age persons would BE criminals.

Zach:  If non-Christians were violent, then Christians should be prepared to imitate their savior's suffering. 

Jeff:  Absolutely.  But, as I asked before, what about the non-christians that would have to suffer because of “our” policy?  And what about reporting crime?  Should we never report crime?  If we know of a sexual predator, should we abstain from reporting him to the “authorities” even though the longer he is free the more predation he will do, conceivably on our children and other law-abiding unbelievers?  And if, on the other hand, Christ DOES allow us to report crime and effectually aid the government with punishment (i.e., the usurpation of God’s prerogative!), how does that make sense?  How can it be right to help someone else to do wrong?  This is what no one with your view has ever explained to me.  Either we are to never help the government directly OR indirectly and, thereby, give free reign to the criminal who will cause suffering to helpless children, or we are to help the government DO what you claim is an intrinsic evil.  This seems hopelessly problematic given that the dilemma can be resolved by simply accepting what scripture plainly indicates – that God has delegated to at least some humans the authority to execute HIS judgment for the sake of deterring evil in this present world.  In that case, the punishment actually IS God’s vengeance just like Rom. 13 implies – it is just implemented by humans with His consent (by delegation).  And our motive for implementing it is NOT personal vengeance, but deterrence of FUTURE evil.  This way God’s prerogative is not usurped, AND we are not acting vengefully.

Zach:  Second, most people don't realize; they assume. 

Jeff:   I would reply, thus:  Chaos would certainly not descend over-night.  But the leaven would do its ugly work more rapidly without restraint.  Second, there are certain kinds of criminals, like serial killers and sexual predators, who would most certainly wreak more havoc, instantly, if they could do so with impunity.  Do we really want to put more kids at risk of sexual predators?  Is that what Christ was saying by forgiving one adulterous woman in one historical incident?

Zach:  Third, we should follow Christ despite the consequences. 

Jeff:  Absolutely.  To death if need be. 

Zach:  Fourth, I agree that a majority probably will not follow Jesus any time soon, but that does not excuse us from disobedience. 

Jeff:  Aye, but we are only thus far debating whether or not God delegates the power to deter evil via punishment to SOMEONE.  I’m not arguing at all that Christians ARE those SOMEONES, yet.  That can be discussed later if we can come to any agreement on our first point of discussion.

Zach:  And BTW, it's not anarchy; Jesus is Lord (a very political claim).  It takes faith to believe that; it's counter-intuitive for most.  He did, after all, take the place of a servant.

Jeff:  I agree, of course, but Romans 13 says that the government is a minister or servant, also.  And a minister UNTO GOOD.  It seems strange and philosophically incoherent to suppose that people can further the cause of GOOD by doing EVIL.  Yet that is exactly what follows from Rom. 13 by your interpretation, it seems.  Paul says just the opposite.  He says it’s absurd to say “let us do evil that good may come.”

Zach:  You said a lot here.  I'll try to address it all.  I never said that the Jews believed "that Moses had intended for the Torah punishments to ONLY be implemented by morally perfect human beings."  I'm saying that from Jesus on, those who follow him leave vengeance to the Lord.

Jeff:  But we have to try to understand what the passage about the adulterous woman actually means.  If Moses didn’t require perfection to implement the Torah punishments, then it seems quite reasonable to suppose that the religious leaders realized as much.  So the question is this:  Was Christ trying to teach the religious leaders a new way contrary to Moses, or was Christ trying to point out, as he had done in so many other instances, that the religious leaders didn’t even understand Moses?  To me the fact that there seemed to be no acquiescence on the part of the religious leaders to Christ’s authority even after abandoning the stoning argues strongly for the latter.

Zach:  The OT sends mixed messages.  Sometimes "vengeance is mine;" sometimes vengeance is ordered of the assembly. 

Jeff:  As I argued above, the concept of divine delegation resolves this seeming contradiction.  Ditto for Rom. 12-13.

Zach:  Jesus is the last word.  Christians are first loyal to Christ and by extension the Trinity.  The Bible is not part of the "God-head."  The Bible is not God.

Jeff:  The problem, here, is that we only know Jesus’ word from scripture.  To play down scripture is to play down Jesus, unfortunately.  For we have no other independent means of ascertaining what his word was, unless you have received private revelation.  But I doubt God expects me to concern myself with your private revelation if He did not either reveal it to me or give you signs and wonders to confirm your word.

Zach:  Jesus doesn't annul the Law; he shows us how to read it. 

Jeff:  Aye.  But he claimed to know Moses’ intent.  He said Moses allowed divorce on account of the hardness of heart.   Moreover, he knew that divorce was not ideal - not because of some new revelation that he had received, but because it was NOT THUS from the beginning according to Moses, himself.  In other words, he let scripture constrain scripture in such a way that it was to be understood in a logically consistent way.

Zach:  I don't know what Moses had in mind.  Perhaps it wasn't the same thing that Jesus had in mind.

Jeff:  Like I said above, Christ constantly appealed to the OT to confirm his own message.  He never seems to take the approach that he was there to trump the OT.  Take the Sabbath law for, example.  He even admitted that the Pharisees were right to get their ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath.  His point was only that the same principle of benevolence was to be used at all times, not just when it coincided with their own self-interest.  Consequently, it should have been even MORE obvious to them that a son of Abraham could be healed on the Sabbath.  But they were so blinded by self-interest they could not even be consistent with their own view.

Zach:  Moses is not part of the God-head either.  It is entirely possible for him to disagree with Jesus.

Jeff:  True, but we should not suppose conflicts between the two when relatively plausible solutions can be found.  To me, the delegation idea seems not only the most plausible, exegetically, but it solves the moral and philosophical dilemmas that arise from discounting it.

Zach:  You said, "He probably also meant the sin of hypocrisy in judgement which is what they were all guilty of."  Who among us is innocent of this sin?  Following Jesus' example, I'd say let's make that one responsible for executing punishment.

Jeff:  No one is innocent of sin, and yet you already conceded that Moses did not require moral perfection as a condition for implementing the punishments in the Torah.  The hypocrisy that is relevant to the context of the passage has to do with their disregard for the PURPOSE of the punishment.  When Christ told them that they were right to tithe the mint and the cumin but wrong to have disregarded JUDGEMENT, he was saying that the Law was not to be taken in a brain-dead, legalistic manner, but with applied JUDGEMENT.  The “ox in the ditch” exception to the Sabbath law was one such case of applying a judgment of principle over mere legalism.

Zach:  So, why didn't Jesus have them go bring the man and kill him too?  He wasn't correcting the hypocrisy that you accurately point out.

Jeff:  This assumes that he was there to magically make people non-hypocritical.  And, of course, he wasn’t.  He wasn’t there to reform the Judaism of his day.  He was there as a prophet and to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  He even said he might come in judgment during their own generation, which doesn’t sound like he thought he was going to successfully reform them.  Regardless, I think he knew that the nation would be judged within that generation, as it was at 70 A.D.

Zach:  I'm sure he was aware of it [their hypocrisy], but he doesn't address it. 

Jeff:  That depends entirely on what they believed was the meaning of his words and, possibly, on what was written in the sand.  If they took him to mean that he was pointing out the absurdity of their having brought only the woman and not the man, then Christ WAS addressing their hypocrisy.  This seems, to me, to be the only explanation of why they left without stoning the woman.  Otherwise, they would have laughed him “off the stage” for suggesting that moral perfection was required to stone someone.  They certainly didn’t seem like they repented and joined up with Christ.  They left in embarrassment for the same reason they had done several times before – Christ humiliated them with their own hypocritical application of Moses’ law.

Zach:  He addresses the very issue of forgiveness' primacy over punishment, even when that punishment is prescribed by the Law.

Jeff:  Christ didn’t even tell them to forgive her.  He didn’t even suggest that they not stone her.  He only suggested who should throw the first stone. 

Jeff:  For they obviously cared not a jot about the leavening influence of the adulterous man.

Zach: Apparently, neither did Jesus.

Jeff:  On the contrary, he told them there time was almost up – that the nation would be judged, and soon at that.  In other words, he was suggesting that they were almost totally leavened already, as was manifested by the absurd hypocrisy of those who actually spent time trying to understand the Law.

Zach:  Ok, they were not following the Law.  We agree.  But neither was Jesus.  If Jesus wanted to teach how to apply the Law appropriately, why didn't he?

Jeff:  He did just that on many occasions, like the Sabbath law.  That’s why we have no reason to suppose, a-priori, that this case was any different.  His question, in my opinion, reveals his intent quite clearly, given that they had only brought the woman.  The reason why Christ’s question seems to be anti-Mosaic to us is because we don’t think about what the stoning law actually says and its purpose. 

Zach:  If his writing was so powerful, why was it's content not recorded in the gospels? 

Jeff:  One could just as easily ask, “why was it recorded that he wrote without telling WHAT he wrote?” 

Zach:  Guessing what Jesus wrote and then having that guess be the crux of the story is a stretch.

Jeff:  I don’t make it the crux.  As I said, the question he asked, given the absence of the man, is context enough to infer that he was addressing hypocrisy.  Add to that the fact that he was constantly pointing out their hypocrisy, the “writing in the sand” inference isn’t even necessary.  It is, admittedly, speculative.

Zach:  To forgive the woman is to disobey the Law.  A law-abiding Jew in Jesus' position would have found the man and killed him too.

Jeff:  I don’t think the Mosaic Law authorized individuals acting on their own like that.  The only exception might be the case where a man accidentally killed someone and had to flee to the city of refuge lest a family member of the deceased killed the refugee in anger.  Besides, Christ was not there to reform them.  He was there to warn them of coming judgment so they would repent and get ready.

Zach:  Rom 13 deserves it's own thread.  I basically read it as Yoder does - in context.  What about the 8 verses that come before it?  Those who justify Christian punishment by Romans 13 hardly ever mention these.  Also, where in 13 does it say that Christians should be "avengers?"  The idea never enters Paul's head (judging by what he wrote).  Christians are to subject themselves, not claim authority for themselves.  Just because God uses certain people to execute punishment does not mean that Christians should be those people.  It doesn't logically follow.  I recommend The Politics of Jesus.  It's said better there.

Jeff:  I have addressed all of this above in one response or another of this post.

Zach:  No, I'm asserting that Christians imitate Christ.  What God did with the Jews, God did with the Jews.  I personally believe this is an example of progressive revelation.  "I do not condemn you either."  This is the proper way of life for a Christian (in fact for everyone, because Christ came for all).

Jeff:  To agree that pedophiles should be incarcerated is being pro-punishment.  But I hardly see how that implies that I condemn him.  Explain to me why agreeing that evil should be deterred implies condemnation.  I deterred evil with my own children when they harmed others, does that mean I condemned them?

Zach:  The Pharisees were right.  It is not lawful for a man to forgive sins.

Jeff:  I need chapter and verse for that one.

Zach:  Remember David and his companions?  Jesus didn't say it was in keeping with the intent of the law.  He said it was not lawful.  He was right too.

Jeff:  What Christ said was this:  David and his companions were guiltless the same way priests were guiltless when they profaned the Sabbath.  In other words, he appealed to the LAW for understanding the law, not to some new revelation he claimed to be trumping the OT with.  The whole essence of Christ’s teaching about the Law was that it was to be read for intent, not as some legalistic document.  For a legalistic approach was sure to lead to dilemmas and contradictions.  The two greatest commandments were, he said, love God and love thy neighbor.  No Sabbath law or any other law was to trump THOSE two laws.  Indeed, the well-being of a mere ox was known by even the wicked Pharisees to be paramount to the legalistic compulsion of the Sabbath law.

Zach:  Jesus is a legitimate expression of God's character.  I'm as sure of that as I can be.  So anything that contradicts Jesus, biblical or extrabiblical (in word, character, or deed) is not a fully legitimate expression. 

Jeff:  But what, pray tell, do you mean by contradicting Jesus, except for contradicting what the scripture says about him and his sayings?  That’s the dilemma.  We, as a community of faith, only know of Christ from what scripture says of him.  Consequently, we should give scripture the benefit of the doubt to the extent that we can conceive of possible and logical explanations for it’s troubling parts.  At least when those possible explanations are as plausible as any we can come up with for natural evil.

Zach:  I don't think I understand natural evil perfectly.  I follow Doc more or less on this one.  I believe God will somehow set things right in the end.

Jeff:  I’ve read that exact argument on this board about infants killed in the Canaanite Conquest.  That argument can explain virtually everything, which is why I see it as dangerous to start chunking verses until we get natural evil thought out coherently and free of speculative ad-hoc hypotheses that can justify any and all problems.  I think we all have work to do on theodicy – both natural and revealed.  I’m just trying to stay as plausible as I can be, given my current and limited understanding.  And thus far, my understanding of natural evil is limited enough to restrain me from eliminating even one verse of the old or new testaments.

I'm going to first try to do some housekeeping and see if I can list the points of disagreement.  Stop me if I misrepresent you.

1. Is it wrong to do something that is otherwise good, if the bad consequences outweigh the good?  Basically, do the ends justify the means?
2. What is the proper relationship between Christians and the avengers of Rom 13?  Should we seek to be instruments of God's wrath or evil deterence?
3. Is the story of Jesus' encounter with the adulterous woman normative for all Christian encounters with sin?
4. Does God appoint people to execute his punishment, or does he accept unappointed punishment as satisfying his own?
5. Does God's use of governmental punishment condone it?
6. Did Jesus come to call for repentance, live a good life, or both?
7. Do Jesus' appeals to the intent of the Law exclude him from having anything truly new to say?  (Can we say that since Jesus appealed to intent concerning divorce, he must also do the same with punishment?)
8. Can part of scripture be concidered not normative based on the testimony of other parts?  Or, must we take or leave the normativeness of all scripture as whole?
9. Is Jesus only known to us through scripture, or do we have the Holy Spirit (who works both inside and outside of the Bible)?
10. Is moral perfection a requirement to punish?
11. Can someone consistently kill and forgive?

I know I've spun these questions to my own point of view, but I do hope they basically sum up our disagreements in an easier to handle way.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/10/2005 7:52:25 PM (GMT-5)

1.  Ok, the biggest thing that bothers me about what you've said is that it relies upon the ends justifying the means.  You mentioned criminals who repeat their crimes, and the inevitability of the "15%" to do evil.  (I don't know the actually numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if only 15% of Americans engaging in crime would be an improvement.)  I can actually go along with you on the ends justifying the means.  But this assumes that the ends are known, and this assumption relies upon determinism.  If a certain percentage of criminals must repeat their crimes, then we might be able to say that all should be locked up ad infinitum in order to spare future victims.  But, we don't know.  Under the open view, not even God knows with certainty.  As ThatDarnCat said, "Probability involves events that are random and unpredictable."  Can a court psychologist tell us with certainty who has had their character solidified?

Hypothetically, the ends could justify the means (we could punish people for their future crimes), but in reality the future is the future.  This morality requires knowledge that not even God claims (according to the open view).

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/10/2005 8:03:39 PM (GMT-5)