I have recently been working on a paper that wrestles with the concept of God’s jealousy: it’s nature and implications. As I’ve been studying the relevant passages that deal specifically with jealousy I’ve noticed a trend. The OT has 35 direct references to God’s jealousy - at one point even calling his name "Jealous". The passages are fairly spread out beginning in Exodus and continuing to Zechariah. Even the ten commandments contain a reference to God’s jealousy. But in the NT the narrative turns a sharp corner (it would appear) for there are only three passages that deal with it specifically (John 2:17; 1 Cor. 10:22; Jam 4:5). So I started reading up on various writers who have dealt with this topic namely Packer and Grudem (everyone else I’ve read seems to avoid it when dealing with God’s nature - Charnock, Tozer, Pink, Hoyt, Boyce) and there is no explanation given as to why it is little spoken of in the NT about God’s jealousy. (If there are other works out there that talk about this concept I would appreciate the additional resources)
Wanting to come at this investigation from the most genuine inquiry possible, I asked myself is God’s jealousy something that is now appeased or withheld for the time being like God’s wrath? (or) Has God’s character changed and he is no longer jealous? (or) Is God still jealous but it reveals itself in a different way from the NT on? I started doing some informal interviews and asked, “What are the implications of God’s jealousy on your life?” I realize it’s not your everyday question and maybe the responses were to be expected but they challenged me to pursue this inquiry further. The typical response was, "I hadn’t really thought of that much", "God’s jealous?" or, "Hmm… that’s a good question." Others side-stepped the question by explaining how God’s mercy and love have nullified God’s jealousy. The default for most people in their understanding was the view that God’s jealousy has little or no implications on their life.
Tozer poses a great question when he asks, "What comes into your mind when you think about God?" This might be one of life’s most important questions. So what is a healthy view of God’s jealousy for our practical theology today? And what are the implications of holding to such a view?
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Don’t you think that the present day usage of the words ‘jealous/jealousy’ needs to be distinguished from the way the words are used as a translation from Hebrew of an attribute of God? ‘Jealousy’, when applied to human motivation, would nearly always be considered a negative attribute. When applied to God, it describes his holiness, the very opposite of common usage today. It describes God’s desire for an exclusive relationship which he was not prepared to compromise with, for example, idolatry. Maybe the cross-over between present day/ancient usage is that the people of Israel provoked God to something like (human) jealousy with their idolatry. But it would not be considered a negative, or culpable attitude.
The qualified sense of ‘jealousy’ becomes clearer in the alternative translation the AV gives to the same Hebrew word - ‘zealous/zeal’ (confusingly, almost spelt the same in English). But the contexts point to an enhanced meaning, which is to do with the passion with which, for instance in Psalm 69, God is said to burn for his house.
In these senses, ‘jealousy/jealous’, ‘zeal/zealous’ are attributes of God’s holiness - his desire to have our primary affections and commitment exclusively to himself. This doesn’t change, does it? But whereas the problem with Israel was a more or less consistently wayward heart, which may have provoked God to something that could be described as ‘jealousy’, in the NT the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33 has occurred: "my law in their minds and (written) on their hearts."
‘Zeal’ as ‘passion’ is not an uncommon feature of the NT. Paul transferred his ‘zeal’ for the law readily to ‘zeal’ for the gospel. Behind this zeal stands a God who is described in Hebrews 12:29 as "a consuming fire" - which provides continuity between the God who gave the law on Sinai, and the God who gave the new covenant through Jesus.
I’m not sure why you don’t mention Romans 10:19, 11:11 and 2 Corinthians 11:2 as translations of ‘jealousy’, or Romans 10:2, 2 Corinthians 7:11, 9:2, Philippians 3:6, Colossians 4:13, Acts 21:20, 22:3, 1 Corinthians 14:12, Galatians 1:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 3:19 as translations of ‘zeal/zealous’ - or Galatians 4:17, 18 as translations of ‘zealously’. Acts 7:9, 13:45, 17:45 have the same word but purely in a derogatory sense.
James 4:5 uses a different word altogether, and has parallels in Matthew, Mark, Romans, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus - where it is applied in a derogatory sense to human attitudes.
All these examples are taken from a Strongs concordance word search, which is a fairly rough and ready way of looking at word meanings. Please tell me if I’m missing something.
I’ve taken up your post because I find it interesting, and worth pursuing. It points to a passionate God, and a gospel to be proclaimed with passion, as opposed to simply analysed intellectually (which is also worthwhile!). I hope this doesn’t come across as critical of you, and you may be able to point out things that I have missed in your post.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
sorry I haven’t been back sooner…
I had excluded some of those other references from my post because they had no direct correlation to God’s jealousy. You are correct that jealousy is defined as zeal ardour and passionate desire towards something. Ironically enough over the last couple of days I stumbled onto another phrase in the OT that uses the concept of God’s jealousy without using the actually word. It comes from the often quoted phrase, "I desire mercy not sacrifice" from Hosea 6:6. The term mercy here is zeal. I found that interesting because Jesus quotes this statment twice in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. In both these instances he gives the admonishment to "go and learn what this means". But suddenly the word mercy when translated in the greek doesn’t stand for zeal anymore but kindness…
if the translation was the same as what was intended in the OT then is Christ saying that what’s more important than grace which is offered to us via the sacrifice of Christ is our ardent obedience and steadfast love? I’m not trying to take anything away from the atonement of Christ just wondering if we’ve placed so much emphasis on grace that now we are missing God’s desire which is for us to obey more than for sacrifice…
any thought here?
also what has been your experience (not that you have done this but it never hurts to ask) when talking to other people about God’s jealousy?
I also was thinking about the aspect that God is jealous in the OT mainly for His people… does this translate into the NT for a jealousy that Christ has for His bride. Why has Christ not responded the same as God did in the OT when his people were being "whores" and running off with other gods?
weeping, pleading, seekingJC
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I don’t understand where your translation of ‘mercy’ as ‘zeal’ in Hosea 6:6 comes from; the Hebrew is ‘chesed’; again in Strongs this is rendered as kindness, merciful, mercy, pity, favour, good deed etc.
What have people’s reactions been when I have spoken to them about God’s jealousy? If my understanding of the meaning of the word is correct, then it’s something I do all the time: God wants a relationship with us in which he takes priority over all things. He is passionate about this, as a ‘consuming fire’ - and interestingly, that reference from Hebrews is taken from Deuteronomy 4:24 which also links it with the Hebrew word translated as ‘jealousy’.
On the other hand, the shock factor in using the word to ask people about God’s character might be worth the exercise.
My point is that the overtones of the word ‘jealousy’ as we use it today need to be qualified when the word is applied to God - and this emerges from the meaning of the Hebrew word itself and the contexts in which it is used.
So I’m not sure that it is helpful to use the word ‘jealousy’, without some sort of qualification, when talking about God. The word is, after all, a translation, and not the word used in Hebrew or Greek. It means that God is passionate for an exclusive relationship with us, and he burns with that kind of passion when the relationship is compromised or diluted.
On the other hand, the shock factor in using the word to describe God’s emotions and character might be worth the exercise, and it points to the fact that a relationship with God is not a mechanical exercise, and brings into play, on God’s side, intense emotions - to which one might add, from the Old Testament, intense feelings of love, joy breaking out into song, frustration, disappointment, acute mourning through loss and bereavement, desolation, simmering anger through provocation, rage expressing itself in decisive action.
All of these feelings are brought into play through the possibility of relationship, in which one partner has to allow for the freedom of response of the other, and cannot control or completely predict the other partner’s responses. If you see where this is going, it means to me that in the creativity of relationship God wants with us, he has withdrawn something of his own omnisicence, and not everything is known and planned in advance. We are in a creative partnership with God, in which creative responses and initiatives are called for - rather than a passive acceptance of God’s sovereign will.
I just thought I’d throw that in as a provocative afterthought.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Can we backup and look at this from another angle?
The important thing to glean from these stories is not that God is jealous, but that Israel viewed God as a Jealous God protecting his choosen people? These stories scream to us that Israel saw God as their protector therefore they saw him as a jealous God. Wouldn’t you want your protector to guard you like a jealous lover? By incorporating what we know about the authors of these stories into the mix then their view of God and the subsequent stories in the OT fit like a glove. Maybe the stories tells us as much or more about Israel as it does about God. Isn’t it a beautiful truth to uncover that Israel loved God so much that they wanted him all to themselves? Isn’t that a natural response of love in any form?
What if the jealous traits of God’s character are traits written into the story of God because Israel wanted to portray their God as superior to all the other gods floating around in the cultures surrounding them. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense for Israel to write in these characteristics of God if their goal was to make sure people worshiped their God in their way?
Maybe the jealousy of God in our sacred texts is a reflection of our own understanding of how love works projected onto God. For us, love = jealous therefore God must be jealous.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I gathered my finding from here. It speaks of zeal towards one specifically love and kindness. (in regards to Micah 6:8)
[If you see where this is going, it means to me that in the creativity of relationship God wants with us, he has withdrawn something of his own omnisicence, and not everything is known and planned in advance. We are in a creative partnership with God, in which creative responses and initiatives are called for - rather than a passive acceptance of God’s sovereign will.]
I’m not sure I can follow you there. As I read the unfolding narrative of where things have been and where things are headed I’m eager and excited about the things he has promised to do. I’m not sure that I can say that it’s a creative partnership. (Some questions that come to mind are: would that put us on the same level as God… would we want our responses to determine the eternal outcome of things… how could we make decisions when we are limited in so many finite ways) I will say this however… I can see appealing to God’s character as Moses did and appealling to man’s response to God as Jonah did and changing the mind of God… and if that is what you are thinking I actually think that is what the NT church believed were the "zealous works" that Christ had redeemed them to do (Titus 3:11-15). For the Scriptures were given for this purpose that we might be equipped for every good work.
In relationship to the Micah 6:8 reference in my previous post. I would like to move that thought forward…
"GRACE! GRACE! GRACE!" echos in everything "Christian". It is shouted at every turn. But is it only for the numbing of the conscience? Have we developed a theology that says, "it is better to rest on the sacrafice of Christ… than to obey our Lord with a steadfast love? All of these passages speak to a foundational principle found in Scripture - 1 Sam 15:22; Ps 40:6-8; Ps 50:8, 9; Pv 21:3; Isa 1:11-17; Jer 7:22-24; Mic 6:6-8; Mt 9:13; Mt 12:7; Mk 12:33.
God desires mercy not sacrafice.
Christ himself said "Go and learn what this means." That was all I need to hear… so here I am posing the question here for us to wrestle with. When you read these passages what do we find God is most concerned about?
These are all bold passages that deal with God’s relationship with man and they all basically get at the same point… God desires a zealous obedient life not one that is based on sacrifice… does that include the sacrifice that Christ provided on the cross?… before you hang me in the highest tree think about it on a deeper level… Christ’s atonement is essential to salvation - there’s no argument there - but was the cross a means by which we could escape from the hard work of discipleship? Was Christ’s work on the cross so that we could market it like a credit card with 0% interest? So that at the end of every month we could receive our sacrafice statement and minimum payment due is confession or an "I’m sorry" and we throw in a quick thank you just for kicks?
If we take this all the way back to the Garden of Eden and the original fall of man was God’s heart not one that desired mercy from Adam and Eve not sacrifice? In the end sacrfice was what was needed to accomplish redemption but was that what was wanted? Let’s wrestle with this some more… in the end in the book of Revelation notice that Christ’s comment to ever church is that he knows their works. In today’s thinking many would hope that Christ would say that I know your heart and you believe in me.
On a personal level, since you came to know Christ, what characterizes your life more, "a fully devoted follower of Christ" or "a heaven hopeful spender of the grace credit card"… we love to throw the "g" word around in our pulpits and writings today like it’s bling bling… Why has it become such a cheap commodity? Is it so easily spent and was it so easily earned?
So what does Christ mean when he quotes the OT in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7? What does it mean that He desires mercy more than sacrifice? What did it mean in OT times?
Jealousy by the way is defined as God not bearing any rival. More on that here
weeping, pleading, seeking
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I believe that when Christ quoted Micah 6:8, he meant that God desires people to maintain a good relationship with God through faithfulness to the covenant than he desires them to restore that relationship through the stipulated methods.
A quick look at the lexicons does not yield a clear definition of cHesed (or the Greek eleos). I believe this is because the language experts have tended to miss the consistent covenant context of the term. According to Nelson Gluek, cHesed is conduct corresponding to a mutual relationship of rights and duties (cHesed in the Bible).
I see Hebrew parallelism where most people see two different things; so: in 2 Chronicles 6:14, "keep your covenant" = cHesed; in Nehemiah 1:5 and 9:32, "keeps his covenant" = cHesed; and in Micah 7:20 "be true to Jacob (as sworn)" = "cHesed to Abraham." As for Micah 6:8, rather than seeing three things God has shown us what is good, I believe he has shown us just one thing, described as "doing justly" or "loving cHesed" or "walking humbly with God."
My working definition of cHesed (a minority definition not found in lexicons, sadly) is "covenant keeping to the best interests of the other party." It’s rather like "faithfulness" as in "I am faithful to my employees" or "she was unfaithful to her husband."
So, I think you’re on the right track when you speak of "obedience." The "zeal" comes in in that the covenant faithfulness God desires is no mere letter-of-the-law obedience, but rather informed effort to accomplish what God set out to do in the covenant. In the context of the new covenant, I believe Jesus would say that God desires us to live like Christ in the first place more than he desires to forgive our sins after we repent and confess.
For more on my thougts on cHesed, see http://chris.mckinney.net/newcovt/covt_6.html#chesed1.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
My comments on creative partnership were intended to be read in the light of achieving God’s overall purposes. In other words, there are many different ways to skin a rabbit. But there is a world of difference between being obedient to God through the Holy Spirit, and being obedient to God on the basis of the written law.
It was perceptive of you to draw attention to ‘chesed’ as the Hebrew original of ‘mercy’ in Matthew 9:13 & 12:7 . And to point it out in Micah 6:8, although this is not quoted in the NT. Hosea 10:12 bears the same re-reading.
It could spoil your case, however, to denigrate ‘grace’ in order to more clearly emphasise your point. There may be a false understanding of grace which implies that we do not need to be obedient disciples of Jesus, but the true meaning of grace still needs to be broadcast loud and clear. It’s at the heart of the mission message. Where we get it wrong is when we try to separate one side of the gospel from the other: grace at the expense of obedience, or obedience at the expense of grace.
It’s worth looking at the context of the passages in which Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6. In Matthew 9:13, Jesus’s target was the Pharisees, whose practices were to condemn (through their misconceived ideas of loyalty to the covenant) the people whom Jesus wanted to include. To be doubly provocative, he then goes on to say: "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" - a back-handed stab at the Pharisees, and their concept of ‘righteousness’ - but laying himself open to the charge of dismissing ‘righteousness’ (ie covenant loyalty) altogether.
Whatever Jesus was doing, he was radically challenging popular ideas of what loyalty to Jahweh meant. He does something similar in Matthew 12:7 - where "condemned the innocent" probably has a wider reference than to the disciples plucking corn on the sabbath.
With Chris (see below), I would want to add something like ‘covenant love’ to the meaning of ‘chesed’ - but I’m wary of rolling the concept out quite as he does. If we were to judge who was on God’s side simply on the basis of zealous obedience to the covenant, we would probably assume that the Pharisees were such people. Something needs to modify our understanding of what it means to be an obedient disciple of Jesus today other than an appeal to the covenant, and covenant-keeping.
‘Chesed’ is used overwhelmingly of God’s love/mercy/zeal rather than man’s. Maybe the disproportion has in itself a message: the zeal God wants from us for Him is perhaps to be seen as a response to his zeal for us. To focus on our duties and obligations to God as a starting point could promote a zealous kind of legalism. But even this would not be enough to distinguish the kind of zeal God wants from the zealous righteousness of the Pharisees.
God has shown his zeal for us in a particular way - through the life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit of Jesus. These are the lenses through which we need to view a call to discipleship this side of the new covenant. In this way we might not fall into the trap of those whom Paul criticises in Romans 10 - of having a zeal ‘not based on knowledge’ - which is self-justifying, rather than that which comes through Christ - "the end (completion) of the law" .
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I agree with you that cHesed is used primarily as an attribute of God rather than man; in fact, it is because of how often it is used to describe God that I consider it to be such an important term.
Further, in examining what OT writers meant when they applied the term to God, one comes up with quite a different flavor than "legalism." God’s faithfulness to his covenant people is not some legalistic tit-for-tat payment of blessings or curses in response to acts of obedience or disobedience; rather, it is loving, merciful, zealous effort to draw his beloved into ever more right a relationship.
I am bothered when terms (such as this one) are abstracted into attributes such as "mercy" or "kindness," divorced from their context—in this case, a mutual relationship. That’s what the hypothetical Pharisees do—abstract "obedience" and ignore the "best interests of the other party." Can anyone point me to an instance of cHesed in the Bible that was not in such a context?
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Man is created in HIS image. In other words, man can be jealous, therefore so can God.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Larry,
Using your logic, would that also mean "Man can be a paedophile therefore so can God"? How about "Hate" or "lust"? Would God have those traits also since we are created in his image?
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Reluctantly I would answer yes.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I think that supports the logic that we have created God in our image. Atleast we have created "our understanding of God" in our image.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Well it certainly supports the notion that people (and god) become what we perceive them to be. If you perceive god to be perfect, than perfect he shall be.
I would say it is probably more accurate to say that we have created God - at least in ‘his’ current form.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
You have to remember that the torah wasn’t completed until around 500 BC (about 30 or 40 years AFTER they returned from exile in Babylon. Genesis may well have been formally written toward the end of that time. Other stories like Exodus were written earlier but well after they were delivered from Egypt and given the promised land (13th century BC). Thrown in the mix was the 40 years in the desert given as punishment for worshipping other gods. Why is this important? The answer is that we must realize that the history of Israel is written into the stories in the OT. The events happened first and then later came the texts (that’s the only possible sequence) Our sacred texts were written by Israel with the express purpose of delivering a message that Israel wanted us to know about their understanding of God. There message is that when they obey God they prosper and when they don’t they lose everything they have. They used God to explain their victories and their defeats. This is just another example of the common use of God to explain natural disasters and victory/defeat in war. God isn’t literally jealous, it just happens that Israel tends to get into many wars and God makes a good scapegoat.
Israel’s mythology of creation/fall/redemption tells us more about Israel than it does about God. We should not forget that the OT is a view of God through Jewish lenses. If you are Jewish you are naturally going to write an angry and jealous God story. Understanding the scripture this way makes perfect sense of the mindset of Israel (past and present) and it also frees us from having to accept all of the baggage that comes along with our sacred texts. We no longer have to use their view of God even though we can appreciate it and learn from it. Instead we can embrace the view of God that Jesus gives us. This view is NOT a jealous God. For Jesus, God is a loving father not a jealous king.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Aside from your quite speculative reconstruction of the history of the OT texts, there are a few problems here.
“If you are Jewish you are naturally going to write an angry and jealous God story.”
Yeah, those crazy, guilt-ridden Jews! I would not call this anti-semitic, since that term has been so politicized, and carries some serious baggage, such as concepts of segregation and genocide. But it is hardly pro-semitic, if you catch my drift. Anyway, why would Jews ‘naturally’ write ‘an angry and jealous God’ more so than anyone else? Are they especially violent or blood-thirsty?
“Understanding the scripture this way makes perfect sense of the mindset of Israel (past and present) and it also frees us from having to accept all of the baggage that comes along with our sacred texts. We no longer have to use their view of God even though we can appreciate it and learn from it. Instead we can embrace the view of God that Jesus gives us.”
Unfortunately for your position, Jesus embraced the scriptural tradition of Israel, and even spoke of it as the absolutely binding Word of God, as has been demonstrated from the gospel accounts ad nauseum.
“This view is NOT a jealous God. For Jesus, God is a loving father not a jealous king.”
Which Jesus are you refering to? The reconstructed Jesus of ‘the Jesus Seminar’? Or the Jesus presented to us in the canonical gospels? To say that God is, for Jesus, ‘a loving father not a jealous king” is to inject a false dichotomy Jesus never accepted, and certainly never taught nor implied. He is a loving Father. He is also a jealous King, who wields the authority to judge the living and the dead from His royal throne (an authority invested in Jesus, the Son of God sitting at the right hand of Majesty). You forget that it is primarily Jesus of Nazareth who has given the historic church its doctrine of hell - God’s terrible judgment against those who disobey Him. Is God then NOT a loving father? Apparently, Jesus didn’t see these two realities as mutually exclusive.
But, if Israel is accused of reading their (mis)conceptions of God into Holy Writ, I suppose, by extention, the same is true of the New Testament scriptures (as the Jesus Seminar presupposes). They tell us more about the church then God or Jesus (if in fact he ever existed). We have then, not the Word of God (as historically understood), but the word of men about their (mis)conceptions of God.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
When I said…
“If you are Jewish you are naturally going to write an angry and jealous God story.”
I mean that Israel loves God and wants him to be jealous just as you would want your lover to be jealous. It proves the return of those feelings. God was seen as Israel’s protector and lover. As I’ve said before, wouldn’t you want your protector to be jealous and protect you from outside forces? God was seen as the one that could conquer their enemies. Wouldn’t you want that God to be capable of anger if that anger could be directed at your enemies?
The image of God given to us by Israel is an image that reflects the needs and desires of Israel. Jesus clearly meant to change that image. He didn’t come to destroy the law, but he did intend to show us a different picture of God. He came with the good news that God isn’t the narrow image of God painted by Isreal he is instead the God for all of creation. He did have a clear position outside the "norm" of Jewish tradition otherwise his teachings would not have presented a problem for them.
Why do we assume that God loves the way we love? We know that love produces jealousy in humans so we assume God must be jealous and we wrote that into our sacred texts, parables, metaphors, and mythology.
KingJames1, which Jesus are you refering too? The Jesus that taught an inclusive message which directed all attention toward loving God and our neighbors or the Jesus of exclusive institutionalized Christianity that has become the object of twisted idolization.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
danutz writes: “I mean that Israel loves God and wants him to be jealous just as you would want your lover to be jealous. It proves the return of those feelings. God was seen as Israel’s protector and lover. As I’ve said before, wouldn’t you want your protector to be jealous and protect you from outside forces? God was seen as the one that could conquer their enemies. Wouldn’t you want that God to be capable of anger if that anger could be directed at your enemies?”
I understand this; however the emphasis of the OT on God’s jealousy is clearly His jealousy for Himself, for His own glory. Unfortunately for your theory, God’s jealousy is typically directed, not toward Israel’s enemies (though there are numerous examples of this) but toward Israel herself! God is jealous because of Israel’s repeated infidelity with the gods of the nations. In fact, in the Pentateuch, the jealousy of God is mentioned only with reference to Israel’s (either potential or prophetic future or actual present) infidelity to the covenant and the true worship of Yahweh (note the first commandment in particular). Likewise in the Psalms, the jealousy of Yahweh is directed toward His own people (e.g., Ps.78:58). In the Prophets, the Jealous God of Jacob is a threat not so much to the Nations (though His jealousy certainly extends to their idolatry as well, e.g., Zep.1:18; Eze.36:5-6) but to apostate Israel (see, for example, Ezekiel and Jeremiah’s searing tirades against Judah’s ‘spiritual’ adultery and whoredom)! Certainly God is jealous for His people, for His land, His temple (Zec.1:14; 8:2), but this is for His Name’s sake, the vindication and full revelation of His glory (Ez.39:25; cf. 36:22; Isa.48:11) as the covenant God of Jacob.
So in light of what the history and prophets of the OT actually have to say about God’s jealousy, it seems that the Jews would be less inclined to include such an attribute, not only as exposing their profound national failure to remain faithful to the covenant, but also the burning zeal of their covenant God against them.
I understand wanting a God whose anger was directed toward your enemies - but a jealousy toward/against yourself?
danutz, I wonder if you’re guilty of confusing the views of Israel as a nation with the prophetic assessment and gospel of her sacred scriptures (according to which Israel is, shall we say, less than covenantally faithful for the overwhelming majority of her history). You write: “Jesus came with the good news that God isn’t the narrow image of God painted by Isreal he is instead the God for all of creation.” Is this not the word of Moses, the word of Isaiah, the psalmists, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, etc.? Certainly many in Israel treated the covenant-lord Yahweh as a local deity, and worshipped Him accordingly (to their own destruction). But the prophets never endured such false doctrine (e.g., Mal.1:5). Or ask Rahab, or Ruth, or Naaman, etc., whether He is the God of all nations. Or again ask the humiliated Nebuchanezzar, or the repentant Ninevites, or the devastated Edomites, etc., whether the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Sovereign over heaven and earth.
You write: “He did have a clear position outside the “norm” of Jewish tradition otherwise his teachings would not have presented a problem for them.” Perhaps. But then, is the response he received all together different from the response of the people to the preaching of Israel’s prophets, enforcing the covenant? Jesus’ assessment of Israel’s response to Him is that it is consistent with their entire history of apostasy and rejection of God’s Word, from Moses to Malachi (Mt.23:33-39; cf. Lk.13:31-35), and such was the assessment of Stephen, presumably representative of the Jerusalem church (Acts 6). This by the way is fully consistent with the assessment given by prophetic writers of the OT themselves, whether found in the ringing rebukes of the great Prophets, the summaries of the prophetic histories (e.g., 2Chron.36:15-21), or the confessional prayers of the restored remnant (as in Ezra, Nehemiah, or Daniel while still in Babylon): Israel’s heart has remained uncircumcised, non-responsive to the word of God, bent on their sinful ways, just as Moses had tragically prophesied in his song (Dt.32). But, God’s mercy triumphs over judgment (Dt.30)! The appearing of Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of God’s promised mercy to Israel, and to the whole world (see Lk.1-2).
Finally, you write: “The Jesus that taught an inclusive message which directed all attention toward loving God and our neighbors or the Jesus of exclusive institutionalized Christianity that has become the object of twisted idolization.”
The imminent threat of doctrinal perversion within the life of God’s people was recognized early on in the life of the ‘institutionalized’ church, as witnessed in the solemn warnings of the apostle Paul to the elders at Ephesus (Ac.20), and later to Timothy and Titus in his so-called ‘Pastoral Epistles’ (not to mention Jesus’ warnings, e.g., Mt.7:15-23). It was for this danger (of twisting the truths of Scripture from selfish motives or for financial gain), among other reasons that the church as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” was ‘instituted’ - establishing a pattern of authority, entailing the ordination of elders/shepherds (who guard the good deposit of the faith and the integrity of God’s household) and deacons for the work of spiritual oversight in the church, equipping God’s people for works of ministry “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no loner be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of doctrine and the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.”
I do not then see institutionalization as either necessarily bad nor as dispensible for God’s people. Christ has instituted the church, together with its offices and spiritual giftings distributed among the community of the saints - and there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith and one baptism (see Eph.4).
So, again, I’m not sure I see this dichotomy as necessary. The gospel of Jesus, teaching men to love God and neighbor is the same gospel that has been taught by historic Christianity, by the church of Jesus Christ. Or do you mean something different by ‘institutionalized Christianity’?
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Is God still jealous? Yes. He is still ‘jealous’ for His glory. This is clear throughout Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. The preaching of Christ among the nations, drawing the Gentiles to the one true God, is clearly to the praise of His glory. See Acts 17, for example, or Paul’s comments to the pagans in Lystra in Acts 14, not to mention the heavenly hymns of Revelation.
“Wanting to come at this investigation from the most genuine inquiry possible, I asked myself is God’s jealousy something that is now appeased or withheld for the time being like God’s wrath?”
Who said God’s wrath is ‘now appeased or withheld’? Paul doesn’t seem to think so (Ro.1:18). Or do you mean that His wrath against His believing people is now appeased?
“(or) Has God’s character changed and he is no longer jealous?”
This is not a biblical option, and is theological suicide.
“(or) Is God still jealous but it reveals itself in a different way from the NT on?”
God is still jealous, and still reveals His wrath against the wickedness of mankind. But, the people of God are under a new covenant (no longer ‘under the Law’). So certainly, the profound realities of God’s wrath and jealousy with regard to His (renewed) people have been fulfilled with the coming of the Kingdom in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. The new covenant has now been inaugurated in the blood of Christ, by which, the apostle Paul tells us in Romans 3, God’s wrath has been propitiated (and the curse of the Law has been removed in Him who become a curse for us, Gal.3). And the divine jealousy, which burned against us who WERE objects of wrath as the perverse children of Adam (and as ‘pagan’ foreigners to the covenants of Israel) has been resolved in the reconciliation of the cross, having now made us, through His glorious grace, worshippers of the one true God (Eph.2-3). This is the essence of the New Covenant as promised in Moses and the Prophets (Dt.30; Jer.31; Ez.36): no longer would His people provoke Him to jealousy through their spritiual infidelity, no longer objects of the covenant curses, no longer subject to divine wrath. Yet clearly God has not changed; rather we have, by His grace, through the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom.5), in which we are made “the righteousness of God.” God’s wrath is still operative in the world and His jealousy still provoked by the idolatrous “suppression of truth in wickedness”.
“The default for most people in their understanding was the view that God’s jealousy has little or no implications on their life.”
This reflects a profound misunderstanding of God as the only-worthy object of worship, as the most glorious, most beautiful, most wonderful being, the worship and enjoyment of Whom is our ‘chief end’ as creatures made in His image.
God is jealous for His glory. He will receive praise and honor and thanksgiving; every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess Him, on heaven, on earth, and under the earth, to the praise of His glory. If we deny the truth, deny God His due, His glory, then we will be denied. If we seek to put anyone or anything else at the center of our life, if we build our life on anything other than Him and His self-revelation, then we are like the foolish man whose life cannot and will not stand, either in the ‘storms of this life’ or at the judgment seat of the Son of Man. In short, our eternal destiny hinges on our response to this jealous God. Either we honor Him as we ought, or we, through our idolatry, provoke Him to jealousy (which is no light thing, according to the apostle, 1Co.10:22).
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Hi KingJames1. Welcome to OST. Your conservatism will bring an interesting dynamic to future conversations, and this is good. :-)
I do not agree with what you have said in your past couple comments (e.g. "God is jealous for His glory", "our eternal destiny hinges on our response to this jealous God", "Jesus […] spoke of [the scriptural tradition of Israel] as the absolutely binding Word of God", etc.). I think what really bothers me though is their self-assured tone. Mind you, holding firmly to one’s beliefs is not a bad thing, though I do fear your extensive proof-texting and easy caricaturization may not be the most helpful to convince people you have a point. That having been said, have you read Brian McLaren’s exposition of Jesus’ teachings on hell in The Last Word and the Word After That? I think he does a fabulous job of placing Jesus’ many teachings (including those concerning ‘hell’) in the proper context of his mission to Israel, and the narrative of God’s plan for the world.
Here we have a situation where the words you are using may convey truth, but I cannot accept them lest my picture of God (as loving Father—and not jealous king) be corrupted. The picture painted by your posts is not one that makes me want to cry out ‘good news’!! Rather I find it rather oppressive and harmful. The good news brings joy, not Calvinism.
I’m starting to ramble, and be less than helpful with my ramblings. But I guess this is a good place to raise a question that has been on the back of my mind ever since I moved away (far far away!) from Reformed theology. When we say God’s glory, what do we mean? I’ve come to see God ‘glorified’ in who God is, the kind of being he is (loving, personal, relational, nurturing, passionate—in the words of CS Lewis, not tame, but good), whereas I’ve often felt that the Reformed tradition involves a ‘passion for God’s glory’ (I’m quoting Piper) that is divorced from God’s character… which can be a scary thought. Infinite power… but only ambiguous lovingkindness?
Thoughts?
Christ’s peace and joy to all,
-Daniel-
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Hi Daniel
Scripture-quoting, I realize, has become quite the source of suicipicion and object of derision. But I find most critiques of ‘proof-texting’ I’ve read superficial, unconvincing, and ultimately (I suspect) an attempt to distance oneself from the (unbearable?) strictures of the ancient text. As to the issue of de-contextualization in ‘proof-texting’, one need only to be familiar with scripture and its historical and literary context to guard against the suspicious use and abuse of the text (and the inevitable ‘will to power’ wielded by all sides on the theological map is guarded, not by suppressing the use of the words of the text, but by a constant evaluation and re-evaluation of them in light of their own literary, historical, and canonical context, which is the engine of semper reformata).
I tried to alleviate this concern for context (which is often manifest as an unhealthy bias against references to scripture per se and with it, certain epistemological presuppositions that are fundamentally anti-realist) by quoting not verses, but whole sections, paragraphs of scripture. Apparently, however, this does not abate your concern.
But if the concern is merely the fact that scripture is quoted, irrespective of contextual concerns, etc., then I ask that may argument be judged not by its mere appearance or other cosmetic concerns, but by the ideas presented themselves, together with the texts employed (faihtfully and with integrity, I hope).
Yet, it would seem that appearance is almost everything, unfortunately. You wrote: “Here we have a situation where the words you are using may convey truth, but I cannot accept them lest my picture of God (as loving Father – and not jealous king) be corrupted.” This does not seem to bode well for your theological method, if I have understood you correctly. Such words ‘may’ convey truth, you say, and yet they cannot be embraced? Why? The picture thus painted is not aesthetically pleasing to us? And so, certain truths cannot be accepted because they ‘corrupt’ our picture of God? If so, perhaps our picture of God needs ‘corrupting’? Our doctrine of God, if one has a healthy doctrine of humanity (acknowledging, not only our glory as those made in the imago Dei, but also our own corruption [morally, epistemologically, and physically] as fallen creatures), ought to offend us at points, challenge us deeply, even trouble us. After all, as you quoted from Lewis, “God is not tame.”
Certainly, we must understand “Jesus’ many teachings (including those concerning ‘hell’) in the proper context of his mission to Israel, and the narrative of God’s plan for the world.” It is precisely in this context that Jesus’ teachings about ‘where the worm never dies’ take on such significance and are so disturbing. Jesus condemned not only those who rejected the gospel during the course of His own earthly ministry (and I shall refrain from those dreaded references to the gospels), but also spoke of hell in the context of the mission of his disciples, both in regard to themselves in their faithfulness to Christ in the face of persecution (one should fear Him who has the power to kill the body and authority to cast into hell) and obedience to His commands (better to cut off the right hand, then have the whole body thrown in the fires of hell), but also those who reject the message of the kingdom coming (the seed of the so-called kingdom-parables) preached by the apostles.
“The picture painted by your posts is not one that makes me want to cry out ‘good news’!! Rather I find it rather oppressive and harmful.” I’m sorry that the ‘picture’ of God as both loving father and jealous king, which is apparently irreconcilable in your mind, appears to you ‘oppressive and harmful’. Yet, this is not the criterion for proper interpretation, is it? You say, “The good news brings joy, not Calvinism.” I did not realize that anything I said was pecuilar to Calvinism, but I assume you wouuld agree that what I have articulated is consistent with the evangelical (note little ‘e’) tradition (which stems back to Augustine, and I would be prepared to argue, back to the apostolic church). Is this not harmonious with the historic understanding of the gospel - the good news as it has been understood and preached by the church throughout its history? Is there anything novel in what I’ve said? Anything pecuilar to any one era in church history? Certainly, the doctrine of hell is not an invention of the reformation. And the doctrine of God’s jealousy has been understood and embraced by God’s people since time immemorial.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether the doctrine of God’s jealousy is part of the scriptural tradition of Israel and the church, but whether or not we can place ourselves within this tradition (i.e., receive this rich tradition) with honesy, integrity, and fidelity.
Lastly, I would certainly agree with you that God’s glory consists in His nature, His goodness, His forgiveness, mercy, love, patience, kindness, and faithfulness. But also, His jealousy, His justice, His punishing sin, His burning wrath against a perverse world (I will refrain again from appealing to the divine glory Moses wanted to see, “the goodness of God” revealed to him on the mountain, manifest in the declaration of His name in Exodus 33, but I will also refrain from appealing to the heavenly worship given in response to God’s wrath unveiled against all those “who destroy the earth” and “worship the beast” in Revelation).
God’s glory is not vague at all, but it is multifarious like the rainbow of light that encircles His throne. If we latch onto only one color, we are in the danger of denying other aspects of His character, of His goodness.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
KingJames1, thanks for taking the time to reply. I think my gut response to the heavy-handed Scripture-quoting you did in previous posts wasn’t so much that I don’t like it when people quote Scripture, but rather that your post carried an onslaught of new information that was consequently difficult to address in its entirety. I whole-heartedly agree with your defense of Scripture usage, and so do not wish to take issue with it further.
I am thankful to Peter for reminding us to be cautious in how we use words. I think he properly reframed divine ‘jealousy’ for us. As for my point about not wanting my picture of God to be ‘corrupted’, let me see if I can try to explain what I meant. I do not want to worship an idol, I want to worship God. I believe that God is fundamentally good, and therefore am zealous about his character. When a doctrine (or a passage of Scripture!) seems to contradict God’s good nature, I cannot accept it. This says very little about the particular doctrine, but rather reveals my own limitations. Until I can understand it properly, I believe I have the duty not to accept it. How many people have misunderstood ‘justification by faith’ in Paul, and yet blindly accepted it, to the detriment of their picture of God’s justice? (I just finished NT Wright’s ‘Paul’, and am much indebted to him for making sense of the doctrine for me) How many people have read Paul’s words about women and the Church, blindly accepted them without understanding them and have created oppressive hierarchy within the Church that should have been committed to radical equality?
Do you see what I’m getting at? I think there are situations where it’s better not to accept something which would make God seem like less than he is. To your comments about jealousy, I would say ‘see what Peter says’, and to your comments about hell, I would say ‘see what McLaren’ says. I am in far over my head theologically, but if the emerging church wants to be relevant and inclusive, it will need to address concerns like mine (if I am starting to sound self-righteous, I apologize).
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Hi Daniel,
I appreciate your candor and honesty. I guess my trouble with the approach you advocate is that it undermines the authority of God’s Word. If I ought to accept only that which I fully understand or grasp, then my own limitations and ignorance become my ultimate criterion, not the Word of God (which often baffles even while now wounding us, and now encouraging us). Certainly many have misapplied hard texts, even abused them, as Peter warned regarding Paul’s ‘difficult teachings’ (2 Peter 3:15-16). Yet, instead of forfeiting these hard teachings, Peter tells the church to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," (3:18). Thus we grow up ‘into a mature man’, attaining understanding and unity in the faith (Ephesians 4:12-16).
I certainly understand saying frankly, "I just don’t understand Paul here." I find myself uttering just this at certain points in his epistles. But that is entirely different from rejecting a particular teaching by an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is never wise to transgress conscience, if I may thus paraphrase your concern; but then, Luther added, neither is it safe nor wise to contradict the Word of the Living God.
In fact, I believe that thus denying difficult texts leads us, not toward maturity, but leaves us as infants, so to speak, "not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness," Heb.5:13. We must hold these things (the truth of God’s Word and our fallible understanding/ignorance) in tension: we must grow, from where we stand, from what we now grasp, into what we do not yet fully comprehend (cf. Phil.3:15-16).
Regarding ‘attractiveness’ or appeal of a doctrine, the danger here (of a primarily aesthetic approach to truth) is that the truth is sometimes repulsive, as anyone who has painfully confronted the sinfulness in their own life can attest (I recall a great line from Peter Gabriel’s, "The Blood of Eden": ‘I caught sight of my reflection, caught it in the window; I saw the darkness in my heart.") Indeed, the salvation of our souls depends on our facing the ugly realities of our dark hearts, and the frightening confrontation with Him "with Whom we have to do" (Heb.4:13; 10:31).
"if the emerging church wants to be relevant and inclusive, it will need to address concerns like mine" Perhaps. But the all-consuming concern for relevance is a bogey, imho, and inclusiveness must be understood within the framework (or metanarrative, if you prefer) of scripture. God is both radically inclusive (in His providential care for all creation, common grace toward all peoples, and, most remarkably, in His gospel, which is both the fulfillment of Israel’s covenants and, as such, light to the nations, see Ro.15:8-12), and radically exclusive (rejecting all who reject Him, and demanding absolute, undivided loyalty to Himself above all else). At the end of day, however, God’s gospel need not meet our demands. To quote the apostle’s interjection (to our presumptuous objections against the mysterious administration of God), "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"
Re: Is God jealous still today?
Whether jealousy is a positive or negative attitude, depends upon the nature of the relationship. And it depends upon how correct the assumptions of the jealous one are.
I have often thought about God´s jealousy. In the first place it shows me how much value God sees in me, and in his and mine mutual relationship. I have many friends, but I am not jealous towards them, although all of them have friends besides me. I have one wife, and I would be jealous, if she had another lover. Our relationship is deeper, we have opened up to each other in ways we haven´t done to anyone else. We have made ourselves more vulnerable in this relationship than in any other. This deepest kind of relationship needs the protection of uniqueness and exclusivity.
God is not jealous for me having other friends. He is not jealous for me having a wife. But he would be jealous for me having another god. He has committed himself to me in too deep ways to be able to bear any rival. So God´s jealousy ultimately shows me, how much I am cherished and loved by him.
The reason, why the OT speaks more about God´s jealousy than the NT, I would see in this: The OT is mainly a history of violated relationship, so the theme of jealousy is predominant. The NT is mainly a history and a description of the new relationship, which has a better foundation. Therefore the main focus is not on the jealous protection of that relationship, but on the deep and meaningful ways in which the God-man relationship can be lived out.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
I have been troubled from the beginning of this thread by the imprecision characterising the use of the word ‘jealousy’ in the comments, especially as a word used to describe God.
It seems to me that there has been too little attempt to understand the use of the word in context, too little consideration of meanings in Hebrew and Greek, too hasty an association of the word with other quite different words, and too great an assumption that there exists something like an exact, literal correspondence between words describing human characteristics and God’s attributes.
To give an idea of some of the issues: the same word translated from the Hebrew in some versions as ‘jealous/jealousy’ is translated in other contexts as ‘zealous/zeal’. In the NT, the word ‘zelos’ is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew ‘qin’a’ in some contexts, but elsewhere is a work of the flesh - Galatians 5:20, and describes the attitude of Isaac’s sons to Joseph (envy, jealousy) - Acts 7:9, the jealousy of the Jews towards Paul and Barnabas - Acts 13:45, and towards Paul and Silas in Acts 17:5. It is described as an attitude which is rejected by love in 1 Corinthians 13:4.
So there needs to be a distinction between the meaning of ‘jealous/jealousy’ as applied to God, and as applied to human emotions and responses, otherwise we get into rather bizarre reflections on whether God’s jealousy in the OT has been assuaged or atoned for in the NT.
A point that has been overlooked in questioning whether ‘jealousy’ as an attribute of God in the OT continues to be an attribute in the NT is the kind of reference found in Hebrews 12:28 and surrounding context, "for our God is a consuming fire", which is a direct echo of Deuteronomy 4:24, in which the sentence immediately concludes with the balancing phrase: "a jealous God". There are many ways in which this kind of attribute of God is evident in the NT, speaking of his zeal, fire, passion and power, as well as his holiness, and desire for a holy people who will place him higher in their relationships than wife, family or friends.
Another issue is the distinction of the meanings of ‘jealousy’ and ‘zeal’ in English, complicated by the fact that etymologically they are derived from the same Greek word: ‘zelos’, which translates ‘qin’a’ in the NT.
I’m just mentioning this, because there seems to be an assumption that we all know what we mean when we talk about the biblical use of the word ‘jealousy’, when in fact we haven’t defined our terms clearly enough, especially concerning how the word is used in context, and as it describes something like an attribute of God.
I have similar concerns about the way other biblical words on the thread are being interpreted, and identified too hastily with each other. ‘Zeal’ has been identified with the meaning of ‘chesed’, which in turn has been identified as a requirement enjoined by God of his people. This may be helpful in looking at the few instances where ‘chesed’ is used in this way, especially Micah 6:8, Hosea 6:6, 10:12 - but as mentioned in my previous comment, overwhelmingly ‘chesed’ is used to describe a divine attribute - rather than human.
Also, the thread seems to have migrated from its original question to a discussion about divine grace and human responsibility - more particularly the latter. I think this is the real, underlying interest of jc christensen, and is probably justifiable.
Re: Is God jealous still today?
We just gave birth to our fifth child so I’m a little short of time at the moment… in response to terms here Peter… I’m with you! And I thank you for your work on term ‘chesed’ as it helps to bring more clarity to the discussion. I also wanted to thank you for bringing us back to the question we are taking to task… Is God still jealous today? There are many implications to this question. (all of which I think are worthy of discussion and I hope we get there) But for now I think it is more important to stick with the specific question.
There are some here which if we were to embrace their reasoning we could write off almost any aspect of God’s character written about in Scripture. I think we are walking a thin line of making God in our own image whether through an argument of negation, eminence, etc. I would hope at this point to simply embrace the narrative as it stands and deal with the filter of God’s jealousy and ask if it is logical to conclude for today that he is jealous still.
I won’t be able to get back on until the end of the week but hope to pick this back up then…
one other quick note… it appears that some are rejecting God’s greatness in favor only of his goodness… maybe God is jealous of both these aspects of his character?
weeping, pleading, seeking
JC
Re: Is God jealous still today?
First JC, congratulations on the birth of your fifth child and best wishes to your wife.
I have been actively reading the posts in this thread and your drive to refocus the conversation led me to ask the following question: Is it relevent whether god is jealous or not?
I don’t mean to be flippant with this question and I apologize ahead of time if anyone takes offense to it. I am simply wondering why God’s character is being held to account? Since all we understand about God is what is written in scripture and by scholars I would think the more important question would to the character of those who wrote these works. Afterall, at this point we are playing a version of biblical phone game.
Not to dismiss the question tho, and I have posted here previoulsy about this, but I would think God would possess the ability to be jealous and probably has cause to feel that way with so many other things taking up his people’s time these days.
Either way - I don’t see how it truely impacts us if God is or is not jealous.