Do you know what it means to “cherry-pick” verses from the Bible? When someone is accused of “cherry-picking” verses from the Bible, it means that they have a particular doctrine or idea they want to teach to others, and rather than considering “the whole counsel of God,” they pick a choose a few select verses from various books of the Bible which seems to prove their point or present their case in the strongest possible way.
They often then ignore or minimize texts from the Bible which disprove or contradict the idea or theme they are trying to teach.
I have often been accused of “cherry-picking” verses from the Bible. This is especially true with my recent emphasis on the non-violence of God. I believe that God is not violent; that in Him, there is no violence at all. I base my view, in large part, on Jesus being the exact representation of God (cf. John 1:14, 18; 14:9-11; 2 Cor 4:4; Php 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3). (Please note that I am not saying God is a pacifist. Far from it. There is a huge difference between pacifism and non-violence.)
Jesus was non-violent, and if He perfectly reveals God to us, then this means that God also is non-violent. The only other possibility is that God truly is violent, and Jesus didn’t fully reveal this aspect of God, which means that Jesus is not a very good representation of the true nature and character of God.
Anyway, when I write about the non-violent character and nature of God, I often get accused of “cherry-picking” the Bible. After all, there are hundreds and hundreds of texts in the Bible which portray God as being quite violent. How can I ignore or pass over those sorts of texts in favor of the non-violent texts in the Gospels?
The truth is that I don’t pass over them. I have what I think is a sound logical and theological explanation for these violent texts, which is discovered by looking at Jesus on the cross.
But I am not going to get into my understanding of those violent texts in this post… (but there’s a book coming!)
Instead, I just want to say that even if my understanding of these violent texts is wrong, then I am happy to agree with those who accuse me of cherry-picking the Bible. If I am wrong about how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ on the cross, then I will gladly and happily resort to cherry-picking the Bible so that it presents God in a Jesus-looking way.
There are three reasons I don’t mind being accused of cherry-picking verses from the Bible.
1. Jesus Cherry-Picked Verses from the Bible to Present God as Non-Violent
I try to follow the teachings and example of Jesus as best as I can. I fail in many areas all the time, but that is where grace enters the scene.
Anyway, when it comes to presenting God as non-violent, Jesus not only shows by teaching and example that God is non-violent (cf. Luke 6:27-30; 9:54-56; 23:34), but when Jesus declared the purpose of His ministry, He cherry-picked a key Old Testament passage to show that He was not going to be violent at all.
The text I am referring to is Luke 4:16-30. In this text, Jesus lays out His mission statement (Luke 4:18-19), which shows that He is only going to restore, heal, forgive, deliver, and set free. As part of His teaching, Jesus used an illustration from the Old Testament about how God sent Elijah the Prophet to a Gentile woman and a leprous Syrian general.
As a result of this sermon, those who listened to Jesus that day tried to kill Him (Luke 4:28-29). Why did they try to kill Jesus?
Because Jesus cherry-picked the Old Testament to present God as non-violent. His audience believed that God was violent, and this violence is then demonstrated in their attempt to kill Jesus (After all, you become like the god you worship).
How did Jesus cherry-pick the Old Testament?
Well, the text Jesus taught from was Isaiah 61:1-2. But if you go and look at the text that Jesus taught from, and compare it with the text He quoted in Luke 4:18-19, Jesus stopped His quotation midsentence! He didn’t finish reading Isaiah 61:2.
And what did He not read? The next phrase in Isaiah 61:2 talks about “the day of vengeance of our God.” Jesus purposefully ignored this phrase! He excluded it from His reading.
When I first taught on Luke 4 about fifteen years ago, I explained to my congregation that the reason Jesus didn’t talk about the day of God’s vengeance was because the first coming of Jesus, which we read about in the Gospels, was for love, grace, and forgiveness, whereas the second coming of Jesus, which we read about in the book of Revelation, will be full of blood and wrath and violence. I said that since Jesus was only proclaiming the mission statement for His first coming, He had to stop half-way through Isaiah 61:2.
“But watch out!” I told my congregation. “For wrath, and judgment, and blood, and fire are coming! Jesus will return a second time, and you do not want to be on the earth when He comes, for it will be a day of vengeance and death such as the world has never seen.”
Sigh.
I have many regrets about some of the things I preached when I was a pastor, but that is one of the sermons I regret most.
I now believe (because I understand Revelation quite differently … and I will explain how I understand it in a future episode of my One Verse Podcast … make sure you subscribe if you want to hear it) that Jesus stopped half-way through Isaiah 61:2, not because the violence of God was being pushed to some future violent and bloody return of Jesus, but because Jesus wanted us to know that God is love, and in Him there is no violence at all.
To make this point, Jesus cherry-picked Isaiah 61:1-2.
Jesus then went on to cherry-pick a text about how God sent Elijah only to widowed, Gentile women and leprous enemy soldiers (two of the people Jews hated most), to show that these are types of people God is inviting into His Kingdom.
Could Jesus have picked other passages about how God sent prophets to good, morally-upright, Jewish men? Of course. But He didn’t. He picked the worst of the worst (from a Jewish male perspective), and then said, “This is who God loves.”
Naturally, when you preach a sermon like this to a group of people who think God hates filthy Gentile women and leprous enemy soldiers, and that God’s ultimate goal for such people is to kill them and send them to burn forever in hell, you will not be the most popular teacher that this particular audience has ever had.
It would be like going into a super fundamentalist church today and telling them that if Jesus were here today, He would choose gay, transvestite, Muslim jihadists to be His disciples. Imagine the rage! If they didn’t try to stone you on the spot, you would at least be condemned as a heretic liberal who deserved to spend eternity in the deepest hell.
But at least you’d be in good company, because that’s what the religious people said to Jesus too…
So yes, Jesus cherry-picked the Bible to present to His listeners a God who was non-violent. And this message was not any more popular then as it is today.
But Jesus wasn’t the only one who cherry-picked the Bible to present a non-violent God. Paul did it too.
2. Paul Cherry-Picked Verses from the Bible to Present God as Non-Violent
Paul’s magnum opus is his Letter to the Romans. His conclusion to the book is found in Romans 15:7-13, where He basically sums up the entire point and message of Romans for his readers. And the summary of the book is that we should all receive one another, both Jew and Gentile alike, because Jesus has served the Jewish people and brought the Gentile people into the family, so that both might glorify God together (Rom 15:7-9).
Paul then closes with several quotes from the Old Testament which shows how God’s plan all along was to bless the Gentile people so that they might praise Him and glorify Him and sing His name (Rom 15:9-12).
Paul quotes texts like 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49 which say, “For this reason, I will confess to You among the Gentiles, and sing to your name” (Rom 15:9).
Or Deuteronomy 32:52, which says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people” (Rom 15:10).
Or Isaiah 11:10, which says, “There shall be a root of Jesse; And He who shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, In Him the Gentiles shall hope” (Rom 15:12).
But if you go back and look at the surrounding contexts of these passages which Paul quotes, it is nearly laughable at how Paul completely rips them from their context and quotes them as saying something almost exactly opposite of what they actually say in their context! Paul would get an “F” in almost any seminary for how he cherry-picks the Old Testament texts to make them say what they do not say in context.
For example, the 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 19 passages do talk about how the Gentiles will sing praises to God. But do you know why they sing praises? In these chapters, the author is basically saying this: “All my Gentile enemies are dead or have become my slaves! Yay! And as a result, they now know that you alone are God! Now they are finally praising you, God! Because they are dead.”
But that is not really what Paul seems to have meant when he quoted that text.
It’s the same with his quotation of Deuteronomy 32:43. In the context, Moses sort of writes a farewell song to Israel, and in it he basically says, “Rejoice, Oh Gentiles! Because God is about to set up Israel in the Promised Land. After He kills everyone who lives there! But that is how you Gentiles will come to know the true and only God! So rejoice! You have been living in sin and violence, but after we come through and slaughter you all, you will finally know the truth! And the slaughter will be so bloody, that God’s arrows will become drunk with blood, and his sword will feast on the blood of the severed heads of the enemy! So rejoice, Oh Gentiles!”
… The whole text is rather twisted. But Paul takes one verse out of this twisted text, a verse about the Gentiles rejoicing, and quotes it approvingly. Talk about avoiding violent passages to cherry-pick the Bible!
Just one more. Paul also quotes Isaiah 11:10. This passage pronounces a blessing on the Gentiles, which is what Paul quotes, but again, in the context, the reason the Gentiles are blessed is because they have all either been killed or have become slaves to Israel. It is sort of saying, “You Gentiles have been running this world into the ground, but now that all you troublemakers have been killed or enslaved, we can start ruling the world the way God really wants. So praise God! Peace has finally arrived!”
I am not trying to make light of any of this. These are extremely troubling texts. These are the sorts of passages that cause some people to reject Christianity and deny God and say that if this is the way God is, they want nothing to do with him.
And I agree.
But thankfully, this is not the way God is, as both Jesus and Paul have shown us.
But there is one more reason why I don’t mind being accused of cherry-picking verses from the Bible.
Everybody Cherry-Picks Verses from the Bible (Even you)!
A few minutes of thought reveals that everybody cherry-picks verses from the Bible. It is impossible not to.
The only alternative to cherry-picking verses from the Bible is to allow every verse in the Bible to be of equal weight, significance, and importance. But nobody does that. Nobody.
Look, do you highlight or underline or memorize verses in your Bible that are especially meaningful to you? If so, you cherry-pick verses from the Bible. I mean, have you highlighted Ezekiel 23:20-21 in your Bible? Have you memorized this verse and meditate upon it for encouragement when you’re feeling down? Probably not.
When you decide to evangelize or witness to somebody, do you pick and choose a few verses from various places in the Bible to share? I sure hope so! The only alternative is to throw the whole Bible at someone and say, “Here, read this!” But if you do pick and choose, then you are, by definition, cherry-picking verses from the Bible.
So since everybody cherry-picks verses from the Bible, the only time you will ever get accused of cherry-picking is when they don’t like the verses you picked to prove your point, because the verses they cherry-picked prove a different point.
So how then Should we Cherry-pick verses from the Bible?
Since we are all going to cherry-pick verses from the Bible, and since both Jesus and Paul also cherry-picked verses from the Bible, it seems sort of wise to follow their example in cherry-picking verses, and pick the verses that look more like Jesus. When you cherry-pick verses from the Bible, pick those that present truth and present theology that lead people into an understanding of God that looks just like Jesus Christ.
Pick verses that are full of grace, mercy, forgiveness, and enemy-love. Then read the other verses in light of these. We don’t toss out into the garbage heap the verses that didn’t get picked. No, instead we read them in light of the verses that we did pick.
By cherry-picking texts out of the Bible to reveal the goodness, and love, and mercy, and grace, and acceptance of God, while at the same time, soundly rejecting and denying the texts which talk about a bloodthirsty god of violence, we have seen that both Jesus and Paul are saying what we can loudly proclaim today as well: “God is not like that! God is love, and in Him there is no violence at all!”
So do I cherry-pick verses from the Bible? Well, I hope not. I try not to. But IF I am guilty of it, I at least have good examples in the Jesus and Paul, who also cherry-picked verses in the Bible to prove that God was like Jesus, and in Him there was no violence at all. (And please don’t point to the cleansing of the temple or Jesus’ instruction for the disciples to go buy a sword.)
But on the other hand, people have “cherry picked” to state that God hates one group over another and as a young believer someone once pointed out that Psalm 14:1 can be taken out of context to say “there is no God.” I know that Jesus, Paul and the apostles did it… But when I preach I try to keep it incontext and tell the people research for themselves.
Yes, context is king. But I guess all I am saying is that the life and ministry of Jesus is the ultimate contextual key.
With that, I totally agree bro. 🙂
Sorry, this is simply NOT true! neither Jesus or Paul “cherry picked” verses to portray God the Father a certain was. Yes, He is a God of Love; “For God so loved the world…” but He is also a God of vengeance; “…Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” Jesus spoke of both Hell and Judgement, and told his disciples to arm themselves for defence (not conquest) after He was gone. There is a full, complete picture of god in both the Old and New Testaments, and should be in our teaching.
If you go look up the context of that second text you quote, you will see that God goes on to say that since vengeance is His, and He alone can repay, He chooses not to. That looks just like Jesus…. “Neither do I condemn you…”
And I don’t actually think Jesus spoke much about hell, if at all. All those “weeping and gnashing of teeth” and “outer darkness” texts are not referring to hell at all when studied in their contexts.
I firmly believe that what I am presenting is the full, complete picture of God in both the Old and New Testaments, which Jesus as the ultimate guide to what God is like (If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.)
If we understand the context of what was being said in verses,chapters,books of the bible and use scripture or show scripture in the same light, is that Cherry-Picking?
Well, it might be context. But Jesus definitely stopped mid-verse in Luke 4:18-19, and the context of the passage he quoted is definitely violent … so I guess what I am saying is that the ultimate context of Scripture is the person and work of Jesus Christ.
ok I get that. tx
The main reason not to cherry pick verses id we don;t want to take them out of context. But most of the verses we want to quote pre-existed the context the scripture writers created to set them down. Generally, when we cherry pick we acknowledge that the Scriptures were not composed systematically and we are using our context, our sitz im liben, after the example of the Scripture writers who did the same with the saying they had at hand.
Yes, context is important. As mentioned to Hal above, context is king. I have just come to see Jesus as the primary contextual key to all texts.
The problem Jeremy is there are degrees of ‘cherry-picking’ if you will. Not all ‘cherry-picking’ is the same. Degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Sometimes, time doesn’t allow going into all of the points and counter-points, in those cases, I wouldn’t call that cherry picking, it’s merely avoiding digression and verbosity. But there are other times, when people intentionally mislead others. They leave out absolutely indispensable contextual facts, and the omission RADICALLY changes how the event is perceived. Sometimes this is done intentionally to present the opposing point of view as a straw man, knowing full well if all the facts were known, then their argument wouldn’t be the ‘slam-dunk’ obvious case they present.
The way you often present your ‘non-violent’ picture of God, as you call it, forgive me for saying so, but it seems like you go beyond cherry picking and torture the text at times. And the things you often omit, it just seems dishonest to omit them from the discussion, sometimes. I’m not saying you are dishonest, I’m just saying that’s how it reads, that’s how it comes off.
Allow me to use an analogy.
Let’s say there was a man that sold ice cream, he owned an ice cream truck. He loved children and he loved selling ice cream to children because it made him happy to do so. Then let’s say, one day, he got drafted to serve in the armed forces. Yes, he registered for the draft, because he abides by the law. In fact, he’s such a law abiding citizen, that he’s broken a single law his entire life. He’s never even jaywalked, so he registered for the draft, and lo and behold, he got drafted. He got put on the front lines and had to fight in 5 battles, during which he shot and killed enemy soldiers. His commanding officer commanded him to do so. To not do so would have been a violation and he would have been court marshaled and thrown into prison. Now, the war passed, he received an honorable discharge and went back to his ice cream business and sold ice cream for decades. People all describe him as one of the nicest, kindest people they’ve ever met.
Jeremy Myers would say that that story is utterly impossible, that it would have been a violation of the ice cream truck owner’s character, that he ‘engaged in genocide, and wiped out innocent people.’ Jeremy would ignore the context, acting like there’s no difference whether or not his mission was selling ice cream to children, or obeying the laws of the land to ensure national security and save American lives, Jeremy would omit that, and just say that if we accept that the ice cream seller was involved in the war that he was ‘violent’ and ‘genocidal’ and ‘just like Hitler.’ So Jeremy would just say that the accounts of him serving in the military were a lie and we should reject them. Jeremy might even say that accounts of the enemy attacking the US were all made up lies, because whenever someone accuses someone of something, it’s impossible that there’s any validity to it, they MUST be scapegoating.
Others would say, no, the way one interacts with enemy soldiers firing bullets at you, trying to kill you, and trying to kill fellow Americans, it makes sense to interact with them differently than how you interact with children seeking ice cream. They’re NOT the same thing, context matters.
Now, you don’t ALWAYS omit context, BUT often you do, and at times, it SEEMS like you know better and are just setting up a straw men.
That type of cherry picking, I don’t Jesus and Paul did not engage in. But even if they did, i think it’s misguided to pose as functionally equivalent our hermeneutics and the hermeneutics of Jesus and Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Thumbs up Dave!
I’m being so troubled to hear sermons purportedly supported by passages that are way off the context! It bleeds my heart!
Hello Jordan.
One of the most extraordinary examples of apparent cherry picking, is in Matthews gospel, where Matthew describes Joseph and Mary taking Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod.
Matthew says this action was to fulfil the prophecy ” Out of Egypt I called my son “.
If we look up the reference Hosea 11.1 . It seems that Matthew is arbitrarily choosing a verse that in its context is about the nation of Israel and the exodus. Is might seem that Matthew is straining to connect that to Mary,Joseph and Jesus being refugees.
It is interesting isn’t it ? For what it’s worth I think Matthews “cherry picking” or “proof texting” reference is highly relevant but it requires a think about not just the journey between Israel and Egypt but all the circumstances of the exodus and all the circumstances of Herod’s reign.
I think the practice that can make ” cherry picking ‘ a fault is not distinguishing between description and prescription.
There is a corny story that illustrates this very well.
A man is looking for scriptural guidance so he opens the bible at random and puts his finger down. He sees that he has touched the verse ” Judas went and hanged himself “. So the fellow flips a few pages and puts his finger down at random again for a better result. When he looks at the verse he has touched it says ” Go thou and do likewise”
I don’t mean to be stupidly flippant about holy scripture. The absurd story is a good illustration on the wrong use of cherry picking.
I wouldn’t say Matthew was cherry picking as he was led by God to apply the Hosea passage.
I agree, Craig.
i see your point.
Jeremy, I think you were right when you said, “Everybody Cherry-Picks Verses from the Bible (Even you)!” And this makes it all the more puzzling when you conclude with “So do I cherry-pick verses from the Bible? Well, I hope not. I try not to.”
Jeremy, it is obvious to readers of your blog that you do cherry pick and that in fact you try to cherry pick. And guess what, I do to!
One day I will stand before God and I want to do this with a clean conscience. Therefore, my theology is founded on cherry picked verses that characterize God as love (as taught and modeled by Jesus).
Oh I thought it was to make a point.
Jeremy,
In all honesty, I can not even imagine a genuine agape (love) that never has occasion for a violent response. To exclude violence completely, especially from God’s expressions of love, would be to make his care for us less passionate than our own parents, who disapline us for our own good, and protect us as needs be.
Violence is a morally neutral concept. It is just an adverb, that only becomes negative as it is attached to specific sins (like hatred, or abuse, or cruelty). A God who never responds violently, in order demonstrate his displeasure or correct grievous wrongs, is not only foriegn to Scripture, but to reality on the whole!
“Thank you Jesus, for yanking me by the neck with your sheperds crook from time to time! And especially for casting the demons that surround me, at times, into the metaphorical swine; not only to display your authority over spiritual darkness, but your loving condescension toward me! Please, help Jeremy to perceive a fuller picture of this passionate love of Yours; to see you not only in theologically neat packages, but accept the mother lion that You are, as well.”
Wow, very well said. Bravo!
Oh God, please help Jeremy believe what I believe because the world needs more arrogant Christians.
Well, maybe we have a different definition of violence. I believe God disciplines, but He does not punish. I believe God corrects, but He is not violent. I believe that sin has consequences, but these consequences are never inflicted by God.
Thanks for your prayers. I firmly believe that they are being answered as I see fuller revelation every day of the matchless beauty of God as revealed in the person and character of Jesus. I pray that others might come to see this as well.
“Behold! The Lion of the Tribe of Judah!” … And I looked, and saw a Lamb, slain ….
Ah, you’re a cutie. I couldn’t help but give the fellow a slap. What an absolute abuse of prayer.
This is why I take the time to respond to your posts, Jeremy, because you know how to listen! To me this a better sign of spiritual maturity, than just to speak ones mind well.
We probably do have a slightly different definition of violence, and that is fine, so long as we are able to actually understand one another.
My question is, why is it so important to you that God not be directly involved in forceful, punitive action? And if God is sovereign over His creation, how can He bear no responsibility in all of the violence He allows to take place?
The way I see it, even sins like abortion are a part of God’s created order. When people try and by-pass the intended result of irresponsible sexual intercourse, they must participate in something very gruesome, and even self-destructive, in order to avoid the natural result (children). While God takes no joy whatsoever in this violent consequences, it has its place in putting on display, for anyone with an awake conscience, the vileness of sin. If we say that God has nothing to do with this naturally punitive and even corrective processes, then are we not divorcing the Maker from this obvious order?
Chirtians often say, “if we don’t get this nation to wake up to its moral depravity, God is going to come in wrathful judgement upon us all!” But Jesus said, those who sin are judged already! Personally, I can not imagine a worse judgement for sin than to have my children brutally murdered, and the greatest gift of this life (being a parent) taken away from me. But can anyone deny that this is justice! Can anyone deny that God has demonstrated, once more even through this tragic drama, that He is a merciful and masterful designer?
And to not see God’s love (agape) in all of this, is not going to protect God from who He actually is, it is merely to insulated us from having to deal with a true Sovereign. To not see God’s involvement in violent actions is to deny ourselves of seeing the Master in His Creation.
“And if God is sovereign over His creation, how can He bear no responsibility in all of the violence He allows to take place?”
Ah, now that’s a good old question:
“The woman YOU put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
You know, everything the Good Lord made was good, the tree and the woman, the man and the serpent. It’s a riddle, how could it go so wrong? Has it ever occurred to you that what is made must be limited, and that a snake is the perfect symbol of the dangers of limitation? No claws to grab you, no legs to chase you, but thing can kill you nonetheless. A great deal of human suffering is caused by our limitations, and the rest is secondary, caused by our suffering recycled. Like a meandering stream, our sins grow to become a white water river, and eventual the mighty oceans.
God has no responsibility for our sins at all. What more could you ask? He made everything good and keeps make everything good? We’re the one’s that make the mess.
Ben wrote, “And if God is sovereign over His creation, how can He bear no responsibility in all of the violence He allows to take place?”
Why should God’s omniscience and omnipotence obligate him to prevent us from doing bad things, thereby violating our free choice?
It seems to me the best you could do to hold God culpable would be to say, “He knew the people he created would commit these sins, but he created them anyway.” But does that really make him culpable? Even without omniscience, we know the children we create will sin in various ways, yet we still have children. Should parents be held culpable because they had this foreknowledge?
Cherry picking is not in the choosing but in the omitting.
It is like a man who can not bare to look at his faults and dwells only on his strengths. Such a man seeks to avoid short term pain but never dealing with his fault creates wreckage in his path.
Cherry picking or the religious is a way of protecting beliefs, of reinforcing unquestioned orthodoxy. It cuts one of from spiritual growth.
Actually, I wouldn’t accuse you, Jeremy, of cherry picking. I think you face the difficulties presented in the Bible with an almost Herculean courage. You come at them from a certain viewpoint, a certain determination, but you wrestle with them, the violence of “god,” the dictatorship of “god.” From my, non-Christian perspective, although I often disagree with you, I can’t help but admire your loyalty to your God concept. I don’t mean that to suggest that you aren’t open minded, I think you try hard to be, I mean it in the sense that it inspires me. I don7t know your Bible so well, is it Jacob that wrestled with God? Anyway, you remind me of that character. It’s good.
Master Nimmy, I like your comments. If this were Facebook, I’d click the thumb’s up icon. 🙂
That’s an undeserved generous comment. You must have a high tolerance for a wide range of personality disorders, not to mention typos. Your comment says a lot more about your big-hearted spirit than it does about my muttonheaded harassment of your Christian brothers. You know Christianity at it’s best is divine. I really believe that. And although I’m not a Proverb quoting dipped in the river of Jordan hallelujah believer many of the great insightful influences borrowed for my journey have been from disciples of the cross. I’m hoping to find some pearls of wisdom here too, or at least food for thought. But I should be more patient. Real insights are rare jewels. They always will be. Anyway, thank you, although I think my comments deserve condemnation. A d or e would have been high praise.
Personally, I cringe when I hear terms like “the slippery slope”, “straw man”, and “cherry picking”. I know that once I hear or read one of those terms, it almost always means that the person using the term is going to tell us that their magic term means they are right and the other person is wrong because the other person is using a “straw man”, they’re “cherry picking” or now they’re on “the slippery slope”. I cannot remember those terms ever being used to tell me the other person is right because that person is “cherry picking”, etc.
Does Jesus adequately and fully represent the character of God? Why is it that the character of Jesus and the character of the God most people find in the “Old Testament” seem to differ?
Shall we argue the Bible? Will we ever agree? Some may say we are “the people of the Book”. But do we personally know the one of whom it speaks? The book may talk about him, but do we know him? Do we know his character best by what we read or by knowing him? Would I know you better by reading about you or by having a daily, personal relationship with you? If I have that relationship with you, might I know your character? Might that inform what I read about you? Or does what I read about you better better inform me about your character than my relationship with you?
In my experience, it is only in Relationship that we can really know the character of Jesus, and whether or not that character seems to match up what some t-h-i-n-k they read about the Father in the Old Testament. Are Jesus and the Father one? What does the book say? What does the one you know in relationship say?
Why do Christians think they can know God? We folks hardly know ourselves, and barely know the people we love. How on earth could anyone claim to know God? What’s a brag. Aye, and the minute you think you know God you’re all a squabbling, even a killing one another. I never heard something so ridiculous in my life.
How indeed? Shall we see if anyone here can answer that question? Or is this one of those forums for people who merely love to discuss religion, sort of like people who love to discuss carpentry, read books on carpentry, and argue carpentry, but have never made anything in their lives? Does anyone here think they can and maybe even do have an actual relationship with Jesus? Is that possible? Or is everyone only squabbling and killing one another? 🙂
I love that reply. LOL.
Sam, you wrote, “Do we know his character best by what we read or by knowing him?” And “In my experience, it is only in Relationship that we can really know the character of Jesus, and whether or not that character seems to match up what some t-h-i-n-k they read about the Father in the Old Testament.”
This makes no sense to me. If we did not have the stories that were recorded shortly after his death, what could we know about Jesus? (I suppose you could argue that information about Jesus could have been passed down orally from the 1st to the 21st century, but if you’ve ever played that game called Telephone, it should be obvious there would be little accuracy in this method.)
I have a relationship with my wife, but if I had never met her and never read anything about her, how could I have any kind of relationship with her?
Exactly. It is only when we have met someone and have built a relationship with them that we can really know their character. What we read about them or hear about them may or may not be accurate. I know people whose actual character is much different than their public persona. This is probably common with people who try to present a certain image to the public, such as public figures like politicians, certain religious figures, swindlers and con men. Who they really are may be much different than what their PR may tell us.
Is the only thing we can know about Jesus what we read in the Bible? Maybe someone made up, invented that stuff. Of course, that is what many think. Do we really know Jesus after reading what the Bible tells us about him? Is that all there is?
It seems you are suggesting we can know who Jesus is and know his character without hearing about him from someone or reading the Bible. Is this what you’re saying?
If so, do you think this is true for all people everywhere?
No, that’s not what I’m saying, even though I’ve heard people say they came to know Jesus without ever reading the Bible or hearing about him. That might be hard to imagine in this country and in this age of the internet, but I suppose it is still possible. I’m saying that we can read about Jesus or someone can tell us about him, just as we can read about and hear about public figures, but we don’t really know them and their character until we have a personal relationship with them.
Many years ago I met and became personal friends with a US senator. Like all politicians, some people thought he was great and some people thought he was awful. I basically didn’t know until I spent a couple of days with him. Likewise, some people think God (or Jesus) is wonderful, while others think he is a monster who loves to create people then send most of them to eternal torment. I basically didn’t know until I became personally acquainted.
Now this is where I think it all goes mumbo-jumbo. I think we can have a relationship with God, but we can’t claim to know God. I mean it’s just like we can have a relationship with an author, but we wouldn’t claim to know the author.
We can know there is an author, someone must have put pen to paper. So we can know there is God, through our own being, through nature, through the journey of our lives. And just as we can be transformed by an author’s words we can be transformed by God hidden presence. But we never know anything more than our interpretation. There’s always a cloud of unknowing. How much of the Infinite do you think you can grasp? Faith, to me, is the act of recognition. The claim of knowing, now that’s a boast that goes too far.
I was made in the image of God. He knows me, to the Nth degree.
When the scales fall from my eyes – as I know myself I know Him.
Sam,
As I read your comments, you seem to imply that the concept of ‘straw man’ is invalid. That it doesn’t exist, and that people never do it? Have you honestly never seen it employed? So 98% of the time(‘almost always’), you can confidently state that when someone ‘accuses’ somebody of using a straw man, that they must be lying, employing some sort of ‘magic’ trick. That’s an………….. interesting perspective. I see straw men employed all the time, most frequently with the topics of politics and religion, and if you haven’t seen it, well, I’m not sure I would have much faith in your sense of discernment. I would argue perhaps you might be using a logical fallacy right now: appeal to ridicule. Instead of critiquing the straw man accusation in this instance on its merits, instead you ‘appealed to ridicule,’ mocking the concept itself, as if by mocking the concept, ‘magically'(your word choice) people will no longer see the straw men we employ, and we can continue with our sophistries unchecked.
you wrote:
Why is it that the character of Jesus and the character of the God most people find in the “Old Testament” seem to differ?
The answer is context. Just like in my analogy with the ice cream truck owner. While running his business, he sold ice cream. While under conscription with the armed force, he employed lethal force. Two drastically different activities, but I think easily understood, WHEN THE CONTEXT IS CONSIDERED.
you wrote:
Do we know his character best by what we read or by knowing him? Would I know you better by reading about you or by having a daily, personal relationship with you? If I have that relationship with you, might I know your character? Might that inform what I read about you?
An interesting point, and one that I can respect. On a personal level, for me, there is a problem with that analogy. When it comes to human relationships between mere mortals….I would agree, better to get to know someone personally. And how would we do that? We would meet FACE TO FACE. We would have discussions, using words, sentences communicated thru an audible voice. If there was any uncertainty or ambiguity about anything, a question would receive and immediate, clear answer. I could also observe your actions, with my own eyes.
These are things that are not possible for us(except those that were present on the earth during the incarnation). Instead, we have to get to know Him by….reading other peoples mail(the epistles) or historical records(Tanach). When it comes to ‘knowing God’ I proceed with fear and trepidation. I’m careful about ‘what God showed me.’ Did God really ‘show’ me that? Or am I deluding myself? I don’t see him visibly, I don’t hear an audible voice. Everyone has thoughts, how do you discern your thoughts from God’s thoughts? So as wonderful as the personal relationship concept is, I must be honest and acknowledge the uncertainty when it comes to discerning God this way. Therefore, what can I be ‘certain’ of? The writings of the prophets, the writings of those who God spoke with directly. The writings that testify of their divine nature by prophecy, and by their brilliant, complex substance.
You wrote:
In my experience, it is only in Relationship that we can really know the character of Jesus, and whether or not that character seems to match up what some t-h-i-n-k they read about the Father in the Old Testament.
That’s fine. In presenting an argument, I just wish that those who try to tear down the integrity of the Old Testament prophets would at least be honest, transparent, with the other point of view. By omitting the context and even implying a different context, they open themselves up to criticism. Don’t present the message of the prophets as:
..and God said,'(yawn), I’m bored, I think it’s time to get violent, let’s see what innocent people I can slay today…ah, here are some canaanites, all of them innocent little angels, perfectly good in every way, lets go slaughter them… MUUHAHAHAHAHA!!!’
I realize that many here think the OT prophets were deluded and full of crap, but I wish that they AT LEAST don’t….on top of that….. intentionally misrepresent their message because it’s easier to tear down that misrepresentation than an accurate representation.
Dave, I never said almost always = 98%. I didn’t use the words accuses, lying, or magic trick. You are reading things into the comment that are not there. I’m saying that calling what someone says a straw man doesn’t necessarily make it so. Those terms are often used assuming that using them proves the other person wrong. They may be wrong, right, or merely expressing their opinion. Those terms themselves are often little more than the opinion of the people who use them.
Yes, I do think it is possible to have a relationship with Jesus and know him beyond what we can read about him in the Bible. I cannot prove that to anyone. It is a matter of experience and opinion. We’ll all find out soon. Of course, that is an opinion also.
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for your excellent describing regarding the cherry-picked way of using GOD’s word. Well you are 100% correct about this. JESUS did this also and if we have a look in the the Word of GOD in the book of Matthew 4:1-11, where JESUS was tested by satan in the wilderness. Every time satan tried to tempt JESUS then JESUS cherry-picked or counter-answered satan with verses out of the Word of GOD because JESUS Himself is the Word of GOD and the Word of GOD come to earth and become flesh (read: John 1:1). When you read through the Bible chapter for chapter one will get a broader view or the full context about what happened, maybe where it happened why it did happen and for which purpose it happened but: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:..” (1Tim3:16 KJV). I do believe that the Word of GOD is alive through the Power of the HOLY SPIRIT inside our total human beings (Body, Soul, Spirit);
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:10)
JESUS’ Love, Blessings and Joy for all the people who loves HIM. Hallelujah …Praise to our Lord and GOD!
We all do “cherry picking”…. Question is ” how far are you going to go?”
Jeremy, you are good in theological arguments. You have interesting perspectives – in many things.. And you go far.
We all have our agendas.. Some might deny it.
Blessings,
CD
Jeremy, what I have to share with you I posted on chapmaned24, I hope he shares them. It’s regarding the 3 days and 3 night not being 72 hours.