Marriage and the Bible - Part 28 - The Major Prophets and Marriage Imagery

In the prophets there is no real changes in the rules of marriage although some things are reemphasized. In the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) some marriage imagery is used to illustrate the relationship God has with his people.


Isaiah 54 has some sharp marriage imagery where God talks to Israel calling her a forsaken wife but then he has restored her. Chapter 50 talks of divorce but saying that there is no certificate of divorce barring his way to his servant.


Jeremiah is far more in your face. Over and over he likens Judah and Israel to unfaithful wives who have become whores to foreign gods. This is particularly seen in Jeremiah chapter 3. He uses it again at the end of chapter 31 where he says he would create a new covenant unlike the first one - one in which he would change them to be faithful.


If Jeremiah was harsh, Ezekiel is off the chain. Chapter 16 of Ezekiel is completely about how God's two wives were not only unfaithful and whores but how they went out of their way to outdo the other nations in their harlotry. God even uses the death of Ezekiel's own wife as a sign of what is about to happen to the nation of Judah if they do not turn from this (Chapter 24).


Daniel does not invoke this imagery at all but does mention the whole wives/concubines issue.


In looking at all the imagery of the major prophets regarding marriage the one thing that is emphasized is faithfulness. God uses the image of what is supposed to be the hallmark of any marriage and then shows how Judah and Israel both have been like unfaithful wives. None of the major prophets will compare though to the singular image of Hosea.


Next: Hosea's Marriage

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immutable?

Immutable -- adj. -- not capable of or susceptible to change.

Seems to be straight-forward does it not? Everyone knows God does not change. God never changes in any way. Psalm 55:19 says exactly that, does it not?

Unfortunately, there is also many verses of the Bible itself that indicate some changeableness to God -- God does demonstrate some mutability. Some examples:

1. God's Emotions: In my reading through Scripture, back in my agnostic state of mind, I discovered something very quickly -- The God of the Bible has emotions. Now the implications of this are not apparent at first but they are staggering if we take them seriously. Let's take a typical case where God gets angry. There are many of these so we do not need a specific one. The question comes: what happens when God gets angry at someone? The implication is that he was not angry before but then gets angry. It means God goes from a state of no anger to one of having anger -- a change. Some of the other implications of God's emotions we will see in later posts in this series.

2. God's Relationships: There are several ways to illustrate this a) covenants "If you have faith, I will do this"; b) "If...then..." statements themselves outside of covenants and c) commandments. All of these indicating God establishing boundaries and conditions of relationship with others that require God to be one that both acts and reacts depending on the situation.

3. God Changes His Mind: I have written on this at length in many of my Open Theism blogs and simply put God changes his intended actions and does something else other than what He originally intended. It does not just happen once but at least five times. Jeremiah chimes in on this as well in Jeremiah 26:13 indicating a promise that if people would repent then God would change his mind. Action: People repent. Reaction: God changes his mind.

All of this, plus other things opened up the possibility in my mind that there may be certain things about God that do indeed change and because of verses like Psalm 55:19 (which is talking about God's justice and holiness) certain things that do not change. After I was done, I drew the conclusion that God's core character (love, holiness, justice,etc.) do not change but God in His experiences does indeed change both reacting and acting in the context of relationship with other free beings.

What this means is that God can be approached and appealed to and if a person approaches God with a genuine heart, God will react and change the situation and his emotions will change toward that person or group of people accordingly.

Is God immutable? No - He is capable of change and indeed He is susceptible to it. He has the power to both act and react. What does not change about Him is His character as He reacts and acts to what people do. As we look at some of the other attributes of God in this series, we will see how this plays out in how we have to re-think God.

Next: God's Imminence and Transcendence

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 10 -- Tough Question #4 -- God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Theology is not a science, nor it is an art although it has shadows of both. It is also not some dry exercise of learning doctrine after doctrine with historical analysis to back it up -- it is not about learning somethings; it is about learning who someone is. It is about knowing God.

It is the first and greatest of all human endeavors. Jeremiah spoke to his people long ago "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast of his strength, let not the rich man boast of his riches; but he who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things" declares the Lord. To know what God delights in is the key to knowing God and to true theology as well. When we delight in what He delights in then we are knowing God in truth; that's when we are practicing theology.

God cannot be apprehended by simple learning alone. It takes the whole being of man. It must involve spirit, mind , heart and strength. My spirit must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My mind must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My heart must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My strength must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. When one truly knows God you understand what God understands with your whole being. To me this is the definition of intimacy with God.

That is what makes the doctrine of Hell so difficult. If it was a mere question of Scriptural support I would be pulled between two opinions. Both sides have scripture. The Annihilation Side has the understandings of the frequently repeated terms of "death, destroyed, perish" that appear in many passages regarding final judgment. The Torment Side has the frequent mentions of "weeping, gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment, etc." Now both sides can dispute the definitions of these things in both directions. There is ultimately no clear winner and historically -- this has been a debated point in the church for its entire existence.

So I am left with trying to Know God through trying to understand a simple question: Why Hell?

My strength waits -- deciding which to back; it takes sides and becomes the depths of my convictions when all other things fail. But where there is no sureness, my strength waits.

My heart recoils at the prospect of eternal torment, embracing the relative compassion of annihilation. On the other hand, It embraces the prospect of justice for the innocent victims of the wicked through torment and recoils at the thought of the wicked just getting off with simple non-existence.

My mind embraces the Scriptures on both sides. Seeing both are supported but not supported. The battlefield of my mind still in conflict in much the same way as my heart but with Scripture as the pieces and philosophy trying to decide who has won the victory. My heart and mind battle waiting for some new piece of information, understanding or thought to tip the scale.

My spirit submits to God that regardless of what end there is -- God is righteous. the one thing i can say with assurance with all the other things I know of God -- "The Lord of the earth will do right" It also in God's righteousness that perhaps the rest of me will then follow.

What is right for God. In his love he must show mercy, In justice he brings right to wrongs. In his righteousness he is right in how he exercises both.

I also believe that both sides are right and the same time wrong. I think there also is a reconciliation. One verse, which at first seems insignificant but has great significance -- Revelation 20:14. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Two separate places; two separate purposes. God doesn't create redundancy where it is not needed. Hades is a temporary place to be swallowed up later by the lake of fire. It is, in my mind, because they have tow very separate and different purposes.

Hades -- a place of waiting for the end. It is temporary and has two sides: the place of torment for the wicked and Abraham's bosom for the righteous. It is a place that is described as a place where those who receive good things in life experience torment where those who receive bad things in life -- receive blessing. It indicates a place where the injustices of this world are righted. Where God's love is expressed to the victims, his justice to the wicked is done and all things that are wrong are righted. it may have the possibility of being the place of final redemption.

The Lake of Fire -- the place of final cleansing and elimination of all that opposes God's will. It is the final curtain for the devil, the false prophet and the beast meet their end. Along with any person who refuses to wilfully bow their knew to Christ. Gone -- poof. Ended. In this God justly removes those that would continue to be a thorn in the side of Him and mankind. In mercy he simply removes them. Mercy both for them and those that love them they leave behind. In the end no one will say God did not do right.

My biggest problem with the usual discussion on this is that this twofold place and purpose are never looked at by people. Both are merged into one and that is not the case.

Yet, it is in God righteousness I will trust -- because if I am right -- OK. If i am wrong -- OK. Because the Lord of the Earth will do right in the end regardless of which side of the coin it eventually falls on. That is something I can get my whole being behind.

Finis.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 9 -- Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

Jeremiah does not really get into the whole nakedness thing in his big book by his name but in Lamentations he mentions nakedness a couple of times in which the reference is to shame and desolation. In one place the breasts of jackals is mentioned where it is said that even jackals offer their breasts to their young but the daughters of Zion were more cruel and wouldn't. Mostly another reference to women's breasts as something that has the power to nurture life.

Ezekiel by contrast uses nakedness as a constant metaphor in his prophecies particularly concerning Israel, Judah and Jerusalem.

Chapter 16 is particularly graphic in its description of how God found Israel like a a baby left to die on the side of a road and God saved her and blessed her as she grew up. Chapter 16:7 mentions how that when she had no breasts and was naked God took care of her (by the way this is the only verse I could find where the word breasts and naked both appear and it is not about sexuality but vulnerability and youth). God states than no one but Him cared for them when they were naked and swimming in their own blood. I said it was graphic. The rest of the chapter is about how Israel has been treacherous because even though God has loved her so, she has decided to play the harlot and expose herself to other gods. Ezekiel will play on the image of the unfaithful wife for the rest of the book.

Chapter 18 remarks about how the people have left the poor naked and vulnerable and thus they will be judge for it. The same is true for 22:10.

Chapter 23 is another graphic description of God's relationship with Israel (Samaria) and Judah who he calls harlots and uses the images of nakedness and breasts in a sexual way. The idea of foreplay comes to mind as you read verse 3. In all cases the issue is how God has always loved his wives Israel and Judah but they have been unfaithful to Him but playing the harlot with other gods. Because of this God promises he will give them both into the hands of their lovers and they will be striped naked and be made ashamed. Particularly telling is how Ezekiel uses the image of nakedness to convey shame and lewdness. The problem is the metaphorical usage which does not really help us with our issue other than to say that sometimes to be naked is to be ashamed or to be exposed and vulnerable but it never really defines nakedness. Nakedness is understood in these passages by the readers and hearers, so Ezekiel never defines it.

Nakedness = shame, vulnerability, exposure

Next: Nakedness and the Rest of the Prophets