Originally posted by jaywillI think Today's Bible Reading is pure BS. Does that mean I'm a believer?
Suggested Today's Bible Reading:
[b]"All things are pure to the pure; yet to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. " (Titus 1:15) [/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI see no cause to say the Jews understand this but the Christians don’t.
Continued:
Well, the city of Sodom was not very thankful to God. In previous years God had sent Abraham the prophet to rescue them when they were all taken away captive. Their rebellion against God is a sad contrast to God’s goodness to them when their families were kidnapped by Chedolaomer in Genesis chapter 14. God strengthened Abraham to rescue the w ...[text shortened]... e alone bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12b)[/b]
Just been my experience that many Christians find it difficult to argue with or challenge their God, or to be bold enough to stake their own moral ground, as Abraham was in this episode. In Abraham’s case, the intercession took the form of argument, which I think is clear from the text.
I agree that this is impressive. I don’t think this changes basically at all from the old covenant to the new covenant.
It shouldn’t. Perhaps we are more in agreement here than I thought.
Whether it was a “final offer” is not too clear. There is nothing indicating that God commanded Abraham not to ask Him again another time. Of his own occurred Abraham stopped pressing God. There is nothing in the record even indicating that God was annoyed.
Where do you see God tell Abraham that one more offer was the final offer?
No, God simply left “when he had finished speaking to Abraham.” Hard to say that Abraham stopped pressing God of his own accord—it’s hard to continue pressing someone who isn’t there anymore. There is nothing in the record to indicate that God was annoyed (nor did I suggest that).
In negotiations (which is clearly what is going on here), when one party makes a move and then leaves the room, that might be considered a final offer.
He was in the presence of God. He loved to linger and remain in God’s presence.
I’d buy that—except that God left.
I will wait to see just what it is about chapter 19 that strikes you as unrighteousness with God. You’ll have to explain.
Gen 19:24 Then YHVH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from YHVH out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
God killed the children, too. (Unless you want to assert that there were only wicked adults, including all the women, in Sodom, aside from Lot’s crew.)
This is my response to your earlier part as well, and my caution about forgetting that the references to Sodom are references to the people living there. When, in your own mind, is it moral to kill all the children because of their parents’ wickedness?
If, in your mind, God’s action was just, why do you think so?
There is not too much encouraging about Lot’s life. In contrast to Abraham’s it is a stark juxtaposition.
Agreed. (Also, I find it difficult to describe Lot as “righteous” when he offered his daughters to the rapists.)
Where else would you think they had their upbringing?
Maybe I missed something here. I assumed that Lot’s sojourn in Sodom was relatively short—not the length of time for two daughters to grow to childbearing age. But the text does not indicate a time-frame.
Peter says that he was a righteous man. Three times he uses the word righteous in regard to Lot. That is more than sufficient for me to also say that Lot was a righteous man.
Actually, you are partly right. I missed the references in 2 Peter 6:8, where the Greek word for “righteousness” is used (again, in verse 7, that is not the word used). But that kind of makes “righteous” an extremely relative term doesn’t it? Lot’s recorded behavior doesn’t seem to accord with being righteous. Maybe Peter was reaching a bit...
Do you think that accepting Peter’s word for it relieves anyone of the responsibility to decide what righteous (the Hebrew word is better translated as “just” ) behavior looks like? (A risky venture, I’ll grant you.)
Abraham didn’t really thunder at God. He was humble and meek in his intercession. By the way, I think it was absolutely initiated by God not by Abraham.
“Far be it from you!” does not sound particularly meek to me (although his “I am but dust and ashes” line was).
You are right in that God initiated the conversation by confiding in Abraham—and I think that is important. Abraham could not have argued about something he was unaware of. The invitation for a response was clearly there.
But, more than that, do you think in this story God would’ve been more pleased if Abraham had simply said something like: “Whatever you do, O God, must be just; so do whatever you will do”? Or, “Just please save my nephew Lot and his family”? Would God have considered them to be more proper responses?
I think between the lines what we see is God seeking Abraham to pray to God so that God might rescue Lot from Sodom.
(1) I see this as more of a “direct” encounter than what is normally called prayer—although that may be to mince words. What seems quintessentially Jewish about this story is that the “prayer,” the intercession takes the form of an argument.
(2) Abraham did not argue just for Lot. He argued for justice. He declared to God that he, Abraham, considered it unjust to destroy the righteous along with the wicked. He did not simply say, “Whatever you do, O God, must be just.” And yet that seems to be what so many Christians are willing to say, instead of saying, “Far be it from you!”
There is a long and complex tradition in Judaism of tzaddkim, just persons, interceding with God. And it often seems to have the flavor of Abraham’s model.
BTW, I do not read the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures through a New Testament lens, nor call upon the NT for exegetical support. You do, of course; we differ in that.