God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[2PhiloVoid]

So you neglected to tell me why the 1 Cor passage and the Exodus passage are different. What is the definition of Jealous as used in Exodus 20:5 and the definition as used in 1 Cor 13:4?

I already hinted at this earlier. "Godly jealousy" is an emotional upset a person, or God, experiences when something that belongs to her, or Him, is unrightfully misplaced and/or neglected. Obviously, since Paul uses the exact same Greek word (i.e. ζηλόω (zéloó) [see Strong's Greek: 2206. ζηλόω (zéloó) -- to be jealous] in 2 Corinthians 11:2 as he does in 1 Corinthians 13:4, then Paul is denoting a different kind of jealousy in each case: one kind of jealousy is the "Godly jealousy" that God expresses in the Old Testament, and that Christians can rightfully express among each other within the Church or within their marriages.

"Carnal jealousy," on the other hand, which Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 13:4, is the desire and envy that comes with wanting something that is "not yours and not due you"; it's more like "gross envy." It's the kind of jealousy that the Corinthians apparently--in their constant divisions, spiritual pomposity, carnality and lawsuits--were expressing and by which they were voiding their attempts in claiming any kind of real "Christian love" for each other. Paul had to set them straight on this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I already hinted at this earlier. "Godly jealousy" is an emotional upset a person, or God, experiences when something that belongs to her, or Him, is unrightfully misplaced and/or neglected.

Obviously, since Paul uses the exact same Greek word (i.e. ζηλόω (zéloó) [see Strong's Greek: 2206. ζηλόω (zéloó) -- to be jealous] in 2 Corinthians 11:2 as he does in 1 Corinthians 13:4, then Paul is denoting a different kind of jealousy in each case: one kind of jealousy is the "Godly jealousy" that God expresses in the Old Testament, and that Christians can rightfully express among each other within the Church or within their marriages.

"Carnal jealousy," on the other hand, which Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 13:4, is the desire and envy that comes with wanting something that is "not yours and not due you"; it's more like "gross envy." It's the kind of jealousy that the Corinthians apparently--in their constant divisions, spiritual pomposity, carnality and lawsuits--were expressing and by which they were voiding their attempts in claiming any kind of real "Christian love" for each other. Paul had to set them straight on this.

The word used in exodus 20:5 is used as an excuse to punish people that are not responsible for the sins. It is used as a negative connotation just as Paul uses it in 1 Cor. Is the Jealousy in Exodus 20:5 good?

 

[Bradskii]

It's quite a threat He makes. Like if I suspected that my wife might be unfaithful I would tell her: 'Just you try it, girl. I'll take it out on you, the kids and the grandkids'.

Forget His jealousy. It's His concept of justice that causes me a problem.

Edit: Rather what people wrote that suggests this about His concept of justice.

 

[disciple Clint]

So then Jesus did not have any emotions?
Does God really love then?

God is love. Jesus was 100% man as well as 100% God so yes His human nature had emotions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The word used in exodus 20:5 is used as an excuse to punish people that are not responsible for the sins. It is used as a negative connotation just as Paul uses it in 1 Cor. Is the Jealousy in Exodus 20:5 good?

First, we need to look at the overall context of the verse you are citing. That particular verse is a portion of the 2nd Commandment, which follows on the heels of the 1st Commandment, so it should not be separated from that linkage.

The point being made here is that God is stating that He is against idolatrous cultures and forms of worship. So, when it says that He visits the iniquity upon the subsequent generations, we need to notice that the qualifier is "of those who hate Me." The implication here, and the historical context being that, it was typical during the time in which these commandments were written for people to live and be raised within static societies. So, in that context, we could say that if a father lives in a non-Israelite culture and hates the Jewish God, that father's children will also hate that god too. In other words, there is nothing redeemable in the society that will halt the social transfer of idolaty; the father sins and leaves a legacy for his children in which the children will surely follow. This kind of thing is alluded to by Jesus when He dealt with the Pharisees. See Matthew 23:28-36.

Additionally, it implies that God sees human sin as a corporate phenomenon, and while He may apply mercy to an individual who asks for it, consequences of human sin made especially by the Israelites will be punished in a way that the entire community will remember. (Here we might think of what happened to Achan and his family [see Joshua chapter 7]).

So, what do we make of this in our now pluralistic, democratically demanding societies? What we make of it is that in the Old Testament, the Commandments were a set of directive given by God, originally given to the Jewish people to show them that it is imperative for them to 'keep the faith' and not fall into idolatry, because faithlessness of that sort does not just affect one's self, but has repercussions for one's posterity and society. Remember, we are talking about spiritual dynamics of static societies from the past here, not so much about the variations and mitigated consequences of belief that we find among subsequent generations in today's pluralistic, democratic, non-static societies where people change their minds and differ from their parents at the drop of a hat.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

God is love. Jesus was 100% man as well as 100% God so yes His human nature had emotions.

Now you want it both ways. God does not have emotions yet Jesus who is fully God has emotions but that does not count because he is fully man as well.

Also, love is an emotion not a substance. If god is love what does that mean? How does God love you if He has no emotions?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

First, we need to look at the overall context of the verse you are citing. That particular verse is a portion of the 2nd Commandment, which follows on the heels of the 1st Commandment, so it should not be separated from that linkage.

The point being made here is that God is stating that He is against idolatrous cultures and forms of worship. So, when it says that He visits the iniquity upon the subsequent generations, we need to notice that the qualifier is "of those who hate Me." The implication here, and the historical context being that, it was typical during the time in which these commandments were written for people to live and be raised within static societies. So, in that context, we could say that if a father lives in a non-Israelite culture and hates the Jewish God, that father's children will also hate that god too. In other words, there is nothing redeemable in the society that will halt the social transfer of idolaty; the father sins and leaves a legacy for his children in which the children will surely follow. This kind of thing is alluded to by Jesus when He dealt with the Pharisees. See Matthew 23:28-36.

Here are the verses:

3“You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Ex 20:3-6 NIV.

God is actively punishing someone for the sins of their parents because He is a jealous God. The context does not say it is a natural consequence of their actions as you suggest. Just as in verse 6 where it says God shows love to those that keep the commandments. That makes no sense if it is just a natural consequence of keeping the commandments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here are the verses:

3“You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Ex 20:3-6 NIV.

God is actively punishing someone for the sins of their parents because He is a jealous God. The context does not say it is a natural consequence of their actions as you suggest. Just as in verse 6 where it says God shows love to those that keep the commandments. That makes no sense if it is just a natural consequence of keeping the commandments.

Well, if all we do is read but one or two verses and think that this limited reading constitutes the entirety of the contexts that apply here, then with that kind of eisegesis ... you could be right.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, if all we do is read but one or two verses and think that this limited reading constitutes the entirety of the contexts that apply here, then with that kind of eisegesis ... you could be right.

In the context it is clear that God punishes people because of Gods jealously if they worship other gods. If you can show me how texts written over thousand years forward from this event in history changes this plain reading then please do. Until then you are just asserting it does not say what it clearly says.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the context it is clear that God punishes people because of Gods jealously if they worship other gods. If you can show me how texts written over thousand years forward from this event in history changes this plain reading then please do. Until then you are just asserting it does not say what it clearly says.

What? I didn't deny what you said previously. Of course I agree with you that God is portrayed in the O.T. as being "jealous" and, reflective of the views He apparently is said to have about idolatry, we find that He can punish multiple genereations of human beings whom He has created.

So, are you wanting to know why God is jealous, OR are you trying to assess how Paul or John says that love isn't jealous?

Which of these is it that you're wanting clarified?

On my part, I'm not seeing the problem. If God is Holy and Sovereign, Omniscient and Almight, then He knows how He's created us and, thereby, He expects us to function as "designed." When we go astray in our families and communities and we create crappy sub-cultures full of idolatry (or who knows what), I don't think we shouldn't be surprised when God says that if He thinks we need to be punished, He'll affect more than just one single perp among us. He might affect you and me. He might even affect our families to make the point.

I mean, if the bible is true, it's not really as if there are truly "innocent" people in the world simply living in "innocent" cultures. We need to alleviate ourselves of this common myth if we're going to bother with attempting to understand the Bible.

And if you're still confused about how idolatry plays itself out and how God may respond to it and affect entire families, nations and cultures, then maybe read Leviticus chapters 18-20, along with the rest of the totality of the Torah to orient the contexts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's quite a threat He makes. Like if I suspected that my wife might be unfaithful I would tell her: 'Just you try it, girl. I'll take it out on you, the kids and the grandkids'.

Forget His jealousy. It's His concept of justice that causes me a problem.

Edit: Rather what people wrote that suggests this about His concept of justice.

Actually, your example isn't parallel. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why these comments? How do they add value to the conversation? Just stop for once, jeez.

Some Christians are purposely unpleasant. I find it best just to pity them and move on.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What? I didn't deny what you said previously. Of course I agree with you that God is portrayed in the O.T. as being "jealous" and, reflective of the views He apparently is said to have about idolatry, we find that He can punish multiple genereations of human beings whom He has created.

So, are you wanting to know why God is jealous, OR are you trying to assess how Paul or John says that love isn't jealous?

Which of these is it that you're wanting clarified?

I did kind of stray. My main point is that the bible says that God is love and jealous. The bible also says that love is not jealous. So if the jealous in both passages mean the same thing then how can this be. In both contexts I would say that they are both a negative emotion.

On my part, I'm not seeing the problem. If God is Holy and Sovereign, Omniscient and Almight, then He knows how He's created us and, thereby, He expects us to function as "designed." When we go astray in our families and communities and we create crappy sub-cultures full of idolatry (or who knows what), I don't think we shouldn't be surprised when God says that if He thinks we need to be punished, He'll affect more than just one single perp among us. He might affect you and me. He might even affect our families to make the point.

Justice is not punishing people that do not commit the sin.

I mean, if the bible is true, it's not really as if there are truly "innocent" people in the world simply living in "innocent" cultures. We need to alleviate ourselves of this common myth if we're going to bother with attempting to understand the Bible.

Everyone does wrong. But it is also wrong to punish people for other people actions.

And if you're still confused about how idolatry plays itself out and how God may respond to it and affect entire families, nations and cultures, then maybe read Leviticus chapters 18-20, along with the rest of the totality of the Torah to orient the contexts.

I am not talking about consequences of idolatry to future generations but that God actively punishes the future generations. How come you only want us to take in other verses when you disagree with what it plainly says. Why when it says God is love is it never questioned based on the full context of the bible to change the clear meaning?

 

[Lion IRC]

Some Christians are purposely unpleasant. I find it best just to pity them and move on.

Oprah triggers some folks. Waddaya gonna do?

As to the Op, I think Corinthians is at at fault here for not providing the necessary volume of disclaimers as to Paul's use of the word "jealous". Paul should have anticipated the gnat-straining, nit-picking, semantics that was inevitably going to arise thousands of years later.

In an age where we routinely change the definitions of words (gay sex means 'love', free speech means hate speech, marriage means whatever you want it to mean, biological gender means "I haven't decided yet") ...apparently the bible is the only book that isn't allowed to contain metaphors, allusions, contranyms, analogies, contextual intention...

@Clizby WampusCat FWIW this alleged contradiction can be easily harmonized so long as you can get your head around a two-word concept commonly referred to as "tough love".

God does many, many things which fall into this category. And the unloving, distrustful jealousy which Paul rightly admonishes in the context of marriage, is not identical with, or comparable to, the real, truthful love of a God who loves us so much that He doesn't want us to flirt with false gods like Mammon (money) Aphrodite (lust) Mars (power/war).

Let me ask you this. If I was absolutely and totally ambivalent to whether or not my wife was having an adulterous affair, would that me an indication of how much - how little - I loved her? Isnt it true that if God didn't love us, He wouldn't care about our fidelity nor our 'adulterous' behaviour?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Oprah triggers some folks. Waddaya gonna do?

As to the Op, I think Corinthians is at at fault here for not providing the necessary volume of disclaimers as to Paul's use of the word "jealous". Paul should have anticipated the gnat-straining, nit-picking, semantics that was inevitably going to arise thousands of years later.

In an age where we routinely change the definitions of words (gay sex means 'love', free speech means hate speech, marriage means whatever you want it to mean, gender means "I haven't decided yet") ...apparently the bible is the only book that isn't allowed to contain metaphors, allusions, contranyms, analogies, contextual intention...

Words have been changing usage since language started. It is not new.

@Clizby WampusCat FWIW this alleged contradiction can be easily harmonized so long as you can get your head around a two-word concept commonly referred to as "tough love".

God does many, many things which fall into this category. And the unloving, distrustful jealousy which Paul rightly admonishes in the context of marriage, is not identical with, or comparable to, the real, truthful love of a God who loves us so much that He doesn't want us to flirt with false gods like Mammon (money) Aphrodite (lust) Mars (power/war).

Tough love does not mean injustice. What if you were being punished for your great grandfathers affair? So this jealousy God has is unloving just as Paul is saying that the jealously is talking about is unloving. You don't love someone if you want to punish their children for what they did, nor is it "tough love".

Let me ask you this. If I was absolutely and totally ambivalent to whether or not my wife was having an adulterous affair, would that me an indication of how much - how little - I loved her? Isnt it true that if God didn't love us, He wouldn't care about our fidelity nor our 'adulterous' behaviour?

Would you then punish your wife lover's children and grandchildren and great grandchildren?

 

[GDL]

Would you then punish your wife lover's children and grandchildren and great grandchildren?

Ex20:5 regarding punishment of future generations, this is not simple language being translated, nor a simple concept understood from a surface reading from a chosen English translation. Here's a translation and notes from a version that includes some interpretational observations:

NET Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, 6 and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

NET Notes (Exo 20:5)

13 tn The combination of these two verbs customarily refers to the worship of pagan deities e*.g., Deut 17:3: 30:17; Jer 8:2; see J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research [SBT], 86). The first verb is ) לאֹ־תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶהlo' tishtakhaveh(, now to be classified as a hishtaphel imperfect from ) חָוָהkhavah; BDB 1005 s.v. (שׁחה, "to cause oneself to be low to the ground." It is used of the true worship of God as well. The second verb is ) וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵםv®lo' to'ovdem(. The two could be taken as a hendiadys: "you will not prostrate yourself to serve them." In an interesting side comment U. Cassuto (Exodus, 242) offers an explanation of the spelling of the second verb: he suggests that it was spelled with the qamets khatuf vowel to show contempt for pagan worship, as if their conduct does not even warrant a correct spelling of the word "serve." Gesenius says that the forms like this are anomalous, but he wonders if they were pointed as if the verb was a Hophal with the meaning "you shall not allow yourself to be brought to worship them" (GKC 161 §60.b). But this is unlikely.
14 sn The word "jealous" is the same word often translated "zeal" or "zealous." The word describes a passionate intensity to protect or defend something that is jeopardized. The word can also have the sense of "envy," but in that case the object is out of bounds. God's zeal or jealousy is to protect his people or his institutions or his honor. Yahweh's honor is bound up with the life of his people.
15 tn Verses 5 and 6 are very concise, and the word ) פָּקַדpaqad( is difficult to translate. Often rendered "visiting," it might here be rendered "dealing with" in a negative sense or "punishing," but it describes positive attention in 13:19. When used of God, it essentially means that God intervenes in the lives of people for blessing or for cursing. Some would simply translate the participle here as "punishing" the children for the sins of the fathers (cf. Lev 18:25; Isa 26:21; Jer 29:32; 36:31; Hos 1:4; Amos 3:2). That is workable, but may not say enough. The verse may indicate that those who hate Yahweh and do not keep his commandments will repeat the sins their fathers committed and suffer for them. Deut 24:16 says that individuals will die for their own sins and not their father's sins (see also Deut 7:10 and Ezek 18). It may have more to do with patterns of sin being repeated from generation to generation; if the sin and the guilt were not fully developed in the one generation, then left unchecked they would develop and continue in the next. But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations, especially in the case of Israel as a national entity (U. Cassuto, Exodus, 243). God is showing here that his ethical character is displayed in how he deals with sin and righteousness, all of which he describes as giving strong motivation for loyalty to him and for avoiding idolatry. There is a justice at work in the dealings of God that is not present in the pagan world.
16 tn The Hebrew word for "generations" is not found in v. 5 or 6. The numbers are short for a longer expression, which is understood as part of the description of the children already mentioned (see Deut 7:9, where "generation" דּוֹר], dor[ is present and more necessary, since "children" have not been mentioned).
17 tn This is an important qualification to the principle. The word rendered "reject" is often translated "hate" and carries with it the idea of defiantly rejecting and opposing God and his word. Such people are doomed to carry on the sins of their ancestors and bear guilt with them.

A few points: More studies in the Text will show how offspring, with exceptions, tend to culturally follow in the cultural views and thinking of their parents. Those exceptions who freely chose to turn back to be loyal to YHWH, then fall under verse 26.

As I recall, you didn't accept my earlier post re: the simple concept of word meaning (jealous - also covered in the notes above) in context - as I also recall others have shown you - so I doubt you'll accept any of this re: the punishment issue, which is a much more in-depth detail and analysis of the Hebrew writing with some cross references regarding the point you now argue. But here it is anyway.

 

[Lion IRC]

Words have been changing usage since language started. It is not new.

...and yet bible skeptics attack Leviticus for using the word "bat" incorrectly. (Thousands of years before Karl Linnaeus' modern taxonomy.) And they attack the genealogy of Jesus having two fathers. (While meanwhile the #woke LGBTQ lobby thinks nothing of claiming that two dads is perfectly OK.)

Tough love does not mean injustice.

Hang on. Aren't you the dude that was dolling out accusations of special pleading...folks asserting ad hoc definitions? Now you're launching into personal preferential definitions of tough love.

What if you were being punished for your great grandfathers affair?

Im not. Please don't throw up red herrings in an attempt to avoid the specific point I made that tough love is nonetheless love even if we don't see it.

I ask again, don't you agree that if God didn't care about our infidelity, wouldnt that be in indication of whether - how little - He loves us?

And just to make my point even clearer, don't you agree it would be ridiculous for an unfaithful spouse to say to their partner..."if you really loved me, (as per 1 Corinthians 13:4) you would let me cheat on you."

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, your example isn't parallel. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Didn't he threaten the children and the children's children for the sins of the father?

 

[Lion IRC]

Didn't he threaten the children and the children's children for the sins of the father?

...deserves its own thread.

 

[disciple Clint]

Now you want it both ways. God does not have emotions yet Jesus who is fully God has emotions but that does not count because he is fully man as well.

Also, love is an emotion not a substance. If god is love what does that mean? How does God love you if He has no emotions?

The answer to your question requires that you study and accept Christology. Jesus is one person with two natures, one nature is 100% human and the other is 100% God. God can love because God is nothing but Good or love if you will it is His nature and it does not change.