Apikorus

Nomad, I wish to reiterate my confidence that you are a very decent fellow. I imagine you understand well that phrases like "sins/wickedness of the Jewish people" coming from religious Christians can appear quite loaded and are easily misinterpreted.

I would like to return to the example from Ezekiel 20 though. You made a curious remark that you consider the NIV translation of Ezek 20:25 more accurate in its rendering: "I gave them over to statutes that were not good..." Could you elaborate on your reasons for this? The Hebrew says "vegam ani natati lahem chukim lo tovim..." which means "And also I gave to them no-good statutes..." The RSV strikes me as a better translation. Were I more suspicious I'd say the NIV is subtly tendentious. Ata yodea likro ivrit?

Translation issues aside, I still think this might be troublesome for religious Christians (and Jews), because it establishes a precedent that God can intentionally mislead sinful people. Since we all sin and fall short of God's requirements, this suggests that we might currently be intentionally misled by God. Perhaps once again God is leading humans to worship of an idol (Jesus?), ultimately to prove to us that YHWH and YHWH alone deserves our praise and worship (cf. Isa 42:8 "I am YHWH, that is my name! My glory I will give to no other, nor my praise to graven images!").

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

hezekiah jones

I won't stand in your way. In fact, I would appreciate it very much if you did, but choosing to completely ignore the entire first paragraph of my last post will clearly not help.

No. I wish to, and did, take issue with Christian interpretation of Hebrew scripture. There happens to be a not so subtle distinction.

Fine and good. The latter reason is imperative to "getting this straight." My understanding was that the portion of your post I originally objected to was providing a Christian point of view. Thank you for confirming this. That is exactly as I understood it, and why I responded in the admittedly vociferous manner that I did.

I didn't say the text you quoted was anti-Semitic. I said the Christian interpretation of the text, with its explicitly Christian interpolation of the explicitly Christian concept of "repentance," which necessarily requires, inter alia, the deification of Jesus Christ, was bordering on anti-Semitism. This was and continues to be my opinion.

Such allegations are likely not breaking news to you. I need not parrot back to you the numerous instances in the New Testament that since the dates of their authorship have been decried as anti-Semitic.

Furthermore, I did not label you personally as an anti-Semite. Not only was such an accusation not included in any of my posts, but I specifically apologized in the event a misunderstanding may have arisen. Such was the content of the paragraph you mysteriously deigned not to include in your response above.

It would be reasonable for you to allege (and you have not) that I may be walking a very fine line on this highly contentious and delicate issue. But I am unafraid to do so, since I am quite confident that neither you nor I personally are anti-Semites. Let me make this clear: It is the dogma I am objecting to, and the interpretations that arise from that dogma.

That you personally subscribe to Christian dogma, and adhere to Christian interpretation of Hebrew scripture is frankly not of great interest to me. This is not a personal attack, but very much an attack on accepted Christian dogma, and its needless creation of artificial divisions between adherents to "competing" faiths. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," isn't that what they say?

That is the whole point. I am not contending that you have erred in your interpretation, but rather that your interpretation is correct, from the Christian perspective. The more you insist you are correct, the more my opinion is reinforced.

The only thing I am accusing you of is adhering to Christian dogma. I assume you would heartily accept the fact that you are guilty as charged.

I insist this is a misunderstanding, and I apologize if my ability to sufficiently articulate my views is lacking. I submit that your use of the words "nigger," "Spic," and "Chink" elsewhere, in an awkward attempt to equate these racial slurs with the diminutive "Fundie" (for "Fundamentalist," hardly a necessarily derogatory term) is at least as clumsy a use of language as you seem to be accusing me of.

Once again, I am not contending that you have "erred" in your perspective. Merely that I object to any interpretations of these supposedly divinely-inspired writings that serve to drive wedges between communities of humans who in my view have nothing to gain, aside from perhaps subjective personal satisfaction, from doing so.

What would be completely absurd on my part would be to assume that the opinions that I have expressed with regard to specifically Christian exegesis of Hebrew scripture, and especially the Christian concept of "repentance," were somehow startlingly novel to you.

As far as I'm concerned, the desire to interpret any passage in the Bible by attempting to impute wholly unsubstantiated qualities of divine favoritism towards any individual, or specific group of people, is one gigantic error. And at the risk of sounding overly melodramatic, I'm quite sure you're also aware that the history of these misguided attempts is written in blood.

This is one of the reasons that I reject all so-called "religions."

This has been pointed out time and time again on these discussion boards, in far more inflammatory language than I have chosen to use.

I appreciate the sentiment; although "hate" is, in this case, far too strong a word to describe my reaction to these types of wholly patronizing Christian interpretations of Hebrew scripture. "Disappointment" is far more appropriate.

Nomad

Hello hezekiahjones.

As I do not wish to get into any kind of pointless flame war (especially as I now believe that you never wished to do this either), then I will ask you for clarification again.

I have offered what we both agree is the proper Christian understanding of the passages in question. You object to these Christian interpretations, which is fine in my view. You are not a Christian, so you may interpret them as you wish. What I would like to know is what do these passages say in YOUR view? If Christians are wrong, then what is the right understanding of the words given? I am going to go into this in greater depth in my response to Apikorus, but I would like to know what you think the passages say, and why. This would help me understand your point of view much better.

Thank you,

Nomad

Nomad

I see this as an example of the listener revealing at least as much about themselves by their response as does the speaker in giving that response. Yes, I have been called an anti-Semite in the past, largely because I am a Christian. Since I am not an anti-Semite, and I know that my denials of this accusation will carry no weight with those that level the charges, I rarely bother to respond to them. At the same time, I do not think it is wise to paint people with broad brush strokes, as this often leads to less, not more understanding in a discussion.

When we look at the full context of the passages in question (as you know, the passage numbers are mere arbitrary assignments given to the text at much later dates. The author of Ezekial certainly never identified his passages by chapter and verse! So when we look at the text within the wider context, together with a Jewish understanding of the nature of God and His divine anger and wrath, we should not be surprised to find Him handing people over to bad laws. This is why the NIV offers a better translation, as it shows the wider meaning.

Look at it this way: Did Ezekiel think that God told the people to sacrifice their children to false gods? Certainly not. Yet God did permit it to happen. Here, as elsewhere, God has permitted a people to continue down a path of wickedness that they started on their own, knowing that this would lead them to finally see the error of their ways, and cause them to repent. Interestingly, it is often the greatest of sinners and wrongdoers that become the greatest saints. By having fallen so far, they see the destruction of the path that they are following than do the less bold sinners.

This theme, by the way, is continued on into the New Testament as well:

1 Corinthians 5:4-5 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Here the man in question has been discovered having an affair with his own step mother! This is a sin and abomination even to the pagans (1 Cor. 5:1). Paul instructs the congregation to hand the man over to Satan, not that he be completely destroyed, but so that his soul might actually be saved. This echoes very well the sentiment found in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where God tells us that He is allowing the people to continue in their sin (effectively being given over to the powers of evil) "that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'". We have a similar scenario being offered in 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Here the crime is blaspheme (the same crime listed by Ezekiel, BTW, in chapter 20, verse 27), one of the greatest sins in Judaism and Christianity. Yet again, we find that the reason for handing these men over to Satan is not just for punishment, but also that they might yet be redeemed. Paul has not given up on them any more than God has given up on the people of Israel as found in the prophesies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel among others.

God does not mislead us. He allows us to rebel, and thus to be mislead, but that is a function of our divinely given free will, once again demonstrating our having been made in His image.

While it is cerainly possible that the worship of Jesus is idolatry and the following of a false god, I do not believe that it bears the hallmarks of such a thing, even to the great majority of Jews. Even in my rare visits and correspondence with members of the Jews for Judaism I rarely encounter such feelings. More typically they are very respectful and open, something I would not expect if they truly believed that Christianity was the modern equivalent of worshipping Baal.

That said, as nothing that takes place happens without the knowledge and permission of God (if not His own active participation), then it is right to say that God permits suffering, and he allows evil. His reasons for this are often a mystery, but as His creatures, we have a duty to believe, and to have faith, knowing that at the end of the day, God is not only just, but also merciful. And if we have erred, yet remain truly repentant of our errors, He will not abandon us, nor condemn us.

Isaiah 1:18-20 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword." For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

God is merciful to those that trust in the Lord. This is His promise, both to His first Chosen People, and to His Second.

Peace,

Nomad

James Still

Not to interfere with Apikorus' response but I couldn't help noticing a few things. Nomad has conflated two issues: the immediate translation of Ezek 20:25 and its meaning in the larger context. I would rather we didn't rush through these problems.

First, Apikorus seems to be well-skilled in Hebrew and I see no reason not to trust his translation. If Apikorus is right then there is a distinction between the active tense God giving them bad laws (RSV) versus a passive tense God who allows them to fashion laws that are bad (NIV). Apikorus argues that the RSV is more correct. Nomad rushes through this important point in order to interpret the verse in the larger context, i.e., through an orthodox interpretation that he has brought to the passage. That is uncalled for at this point. This seems to be a case where God has intentionally (actively) given his people bad laws. Can we agree that this is the proper understanding of this passage?

Nomad wants to argue that we should understand Ezek. 20:25 passively (God allowed evil to happen) rather than actively (God is the author of evil). Thus he can conclude:

Even if Apikorus lets him get away with ignoring the correct translation of the passage in favor of orthodox interpretation, this is still theologically untenable and embarrassing. If I create a circumstance in which someone standing next to me is able to shoot another with a gun while I watch passively, I am just as culpable for the outcome as I am if I had pulled the trigger myself.

I'll ignore the bulk of Nomad's post because, while interesting as a reflection of faith, it depends entirely on a certain interpretation of God's actions that is the very question in the discussion.

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: James Still ]

hezekiah jones

Hi Nomad. I will certainly do so, if you will allow me some time to think about it further. I'm confident I can revisit my point divorced from any potential for inflammability.

In the meantime I certainly hope you continue your discussion with Apikorus et al. Despite my intrusion, it is quite fascinating.

Regards.

Apikorus

Nomad, I suppose we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of Ezek 20:25. I believe my translation and that of the RSV make perfect sense in context. The notion that God might intentionally mislead sinful people is shocking, to be sure, but it is not without precedent. Recall that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exod 9:16; 10:2). One could also adduce God's charge to Isaiah (6:10) (see also Isa 63:17) as well as 1 Kings 18:37-38 and 1 Kings 22:23. The (softer) view that God gives people over to their own wickedness also is articulated in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Ps 81:12). But in Ezek 20:25, which I most certainly am reading in context (and in the original Hebrew, I might add), the language quite clearly has YHWH giving to the Israelites (natati lahem = "I gave to them") no-good statutes (chukim lo tovim). This has nothing to do with verse numberings, Nomad, but with the Hebrew words themselves and their rather incontravertible meanings. (I presume since you did not answer my question that you do not read Hebrew.)

Another relevant passage is found earlier in Ezekiel itself: Ezek 14:9 "And if a prophet is so misled as to speak an oracle, I YHWH have misled that prophet. I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel."

The implication of these various texts is that YHWH occasionally misleads and destroys the sinful, so that others might recognize this and return to YHWH as a chastened remnant. I think that if one reads Ezekiel with attention to its sociohistorical context, this interpretation makes good sense.

Your reading, while it is not supported by the Masoretic Text itself, was in fact the one imposed in the Aramaic Targum Yonatan, which in Ezek 20:25 says that YHWH "delivered them into the power of their stupid impulse". But the Targumim are far from literal and are often quite tendentiously expansive and paraphrastic. This is an excellent example: the translator apparently was unwilling to accept the notion that YHWH might intentionally mislead his own people, just as you are - some 1600-1800 years later! (We only approximately know when the Targumim were written.)

Most Jews, I would hope, are respectful of Christian traditions regarding Jesus. However, make no mistake that, for religious Jews, Jesus worship is tantamount to idolatry. In fact, Jewish law forbids Jews from setting foot in a Christian church on the grounds that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion. (By contrast, Jews are permitted to enter a Muslim mosque.) I suppose the relevant question would be to ask whether the Israelite Baal worshipers would have acknowledged their actions as ungodly. Perhaps they saw themselves as being just as righteous as modern religious Christians see themselves. Perhaps they identified YHWH with other baalim (analogous to the Christian identification of Jesus with God in the trinity)?

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Ish

I do... Some at least...

Literally, Ezek. 20:25 reads:

"vegam [and also] ani [I] natati [gave I] lahem [to them] chukim [statutes] lo [not] tovim [good]..."

So you are right to say that the NIV does not have a literal translation of this verse. However, the NIV does not claim to be a completely literal translation. In some cases (e.g. this one) it makes use of thought-for-thought translation techniques.

It is definitely a more literal translation, but I would not agree that it is necessarily better for the very reasons that Nomad gave... Context is important.

In context (Ez. 4-11), one discovers that the people and their prophet have already gone astray of their own will.

Hmm... Perhaps I'm being theologically naive here, but I'm not sure I would say that this is wrong the way it is worded. The people made their free will choice not to follow YHWH and "bear the punishment of their iniquity"(Ez. 14:10).

In context, one can see that God does not want these people to go astray. With that in mind, I believe we are safe to conclude that God gave these people every chance to repent. I'm not sure I see a real problem.

With all the talk of misunderstanding another religion, I think this is one of the worst and most often repeated misunderstandings of Christianity.

Christians believe that Jesus is YHWH.

There is no plurality of Gods. The foundations of this belief are found all throughout the New Testament. Thought the Nicean council later made the trinity official church doctrine, but the foundations had been there all along for all to read.

Ish

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]

Apikorus

Ish, it seems likely that the syncretistic Baal-YHWH worshipers may have protested that they were misunderstood as well. The issue is not whether Christians believe they are monotheists - of course they do! The question is whether Jesus really is YHWH. (I confess to yanking Nomad's chain a little here, but not out of malice. I'm curious to see how he justifies his faith in a permanent and universal theology given the problems posed by progressive revelation, intentional deception by God, etc.)

And speaking of major religious misunderstandings, how about that whopper that many Christians fall for when they insist that Jews have missed their own messiah??!!

I think you are misunderstanding my point regarding Ezek 20:25 etc. I am not proffering my interpretation as a universal theology. Rather I am saying that it is a rare, but quite clearly articulated notion that YHWH occasionally misleads the sinful and then destroys them. Nota bene: these are people who already have strayed. So indeed they have sinned of their own free will - I am not saying that God misleads the pure to sin! But, having strayed down the path of sin, certain people are occasionally misled by YHWH to sin further. Eventually, they burn out and are destroyed. Remember, God hardened Pharaoh's heart! You have not adduced any evidence to challenge this interpretation.

It is a curious question as to whether the biblical authors of these passages believed that someone being so misled by YHWH could possibly even recognize his own sinfulness. Would he even remember his initial sin? It seems to me a useful concept - that God might lead the sinful to even more sin so that they might be destroyed and serve as an object lesson for others. It allows for some attractive rationalizations, even though it may open a theological can of worms.

Before you adduce Ezekiel 18 in support of the claim that YHWH always prefers repentence to destruction of the wicked (cf. Ezek 18:23), remember that Ezek 18's doctrine of personal responsibility is plainly revisionist in that it renounces the Torahitic doctrine of YHWH as executing punishment down to the fourth generation (e.g. Exod 20:5). The context of Ezek 20:25 is the wilderness period.

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Ish

I can't put my finger on it, but this doesn't seem like an exact comparison somehow. You have to admit that there was in first century Palestine the rather popular and outspoken notion among "the Jews" that a Messiah would come. Regardless, I do think I see your point.

I think I got your point, I'm just not sure that I disagree. Perhaps I skipped over something important in another post, but what problems do you see this causing if the sinner sins rejects God of his/her own will?

It seems to me that this "initial sin" is more a rejection of God. Perhaps that is where the disconnect lies. If, in spite of God having allowed every possible opportunity, the person rejects God, then God may use that person to his own glorification anyway... The person made their decision and God is simply being just and doing what he stated he would.

I do believe Ezek. 18:23 provides a statement about God that is true.

This is an interesting point that you bring up from Exod. 20:5, but as you probably know, the word that you have translated "punishment" (-pqd-) is notoriously difficult to translate. Punishment does not necessarily do this word justice. This verse more than likely means that the sins of one generation will be felt in the next generation.

I say this because Deut. 24:15 is also a Torahitic doctrine of YHWH:

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

So, in the text, I see a God that is just and only deals out "punishment" for those that ultimately reject him and his ways, possibly allowing them many chances to "get right".

Ish

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]