Tolerance
“Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” Genesis 18:25 NASB
Judge – The word translated “judge” is from the root shapat. It means, “to act out the functions of government.” The Hebrew concept of governing is not like the idea of justice in the Western world. It is not the application of a separate set of laws that exist above the morality of the culture, subject to change by a majority vote. The Hebrew view is that the ruler of the tribe is the embodiment of the law of the culture. The ruler is prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner. Hebrew people never thought of themselves as ruled by laws. They were ruled by a person – God. We see the same concept today in the tribes of the Middle East and Africa. The chief of the tribe is the final authority of law and action.
Abraham understands this concept. But he knows that God is not just the chief of the tribe of Israel. God is the Judge of all the earth. This is an incredibly powerful statement. It implies that God is the final authority and the last appeal of all rules and actions. He is the Judge of all the earth because He owns it all – everything. The Creator has the right to rule as He sees fit because the creation follows His purposes. But the Creator made a decision that affects the progress of those purposes. He decided to create other beings who could choose independently of Him. He risked the creation and His own plans in order to bring into existence others who could disrupt those plans. This is the biblical view of tolerance.
Today the current politically correct fad is another form of tolerance. From talk shows to newspapers, we are told that the key to multicultural harmony is tolerance. I am afraid that the history of mankind does not support such an appeal. God is the Judge of all the earth. When I look at God’s policy of tolerance, I don’t find much room for altering the final design. God’s purposes do not vary. They are His expectations for living in His world. We are not given the option of deciding that we don’t like these rules. The truth is that God really doesn’t care if we don’t like the rules for living in His world. He is not about to tolerate diversity when it comes to holiness. If we want to live in His world, we need to put ourselves under His justice. We can disobey but we cannot erase.
God is also extremely patient. He allows ample time for repentance. But this delay is not the same as today’s tolerance. God’s patience is a delay of judgment, not a change in the rules. There is ultimately no tolerance for sin.
Today’s proponents of tolerance are really attempting to change God’s call to holiness. Paul tells us not to conform to this change. We are to stand for what is right – according to the Judge of all the earth. There is no tolerance for sin and disobedience. There is only patience—so far.
Topical Index: tolerance, judge, shapat, Genesis 18:25
Creature Conversations
~ Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! ~
Abraham was speaking with God! He was “negotiating” the future of mankind with the righteous ‘Judge of the whole earth.” He knew God would “do right” because Abraham knew God “intimately.” Abraham knew God is (altogether) holy. Totally “other,” – totally “sin-free.”
If this is true, (and it is)- we have a serious problem. God is holy- we are not. There is (was) a great “divide” between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man. That “divide”- this “division” between the sacred and the profane has been bridged.
The prophecy of Abraham has been fulfilled: ~ God will provide Himself a Lamb ~ And we know (with 20/20 hindsight), He did. He provided for Abraham, and He provided for us- At Calvary.
We have an Advocate, an Intermediary, a Representive, an Attorney before God, our Judge, – Jesus Christ the Righteous.
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device nor creed;
I trust the Ever-living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
-This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He’ll never cast me out.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The written Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior’s Name,
-Salvation through His blood.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
(fellow) Sinner, -how do you plead? Guilty as charged, Your honor.
Attorney, – what have You to say?
Father, forgive him-for My sake.
Blessed is the Lamb who was slain..
Far dearer than all that the world can impart
Was the message that came to my heart.
How that Jesus alone for my sin did atone,
And Calvary covers it all.
Calvary covers it all,
My past with its sin and stain;
My guilt and despair
Jesus took on Him there,
And Calvary covers it all.
The stripes that He bore and the thorns that He wore
Told His mercy and love evermore
And my heart bowed in shame as I called on His Name,
And Calvary covers it all.
Calvary covers it all,
My past with its sin and stain;
My guilt and despair
Jesus took on Him there,
And Calvary covers it all.
How matchless the grace, when I looked in the face
Of this Jesus, my crucified LORD;
My redemption complete, I then found at His feet,
And Calvary covers it all.
Calvary covers it all,
My past with its sin and stain;
My guilt and despair
Jesus took on Him there,
And Calvary covers it all.
How blessed the thought, that my soul by Him bought,
Shall be His in the glory on high;
Where with gladness and song, I’ll be one of the throng
And Calvary covers it all.
Calvary covers it all,
My past with its sin and stain;
My guilt and despair
Jesus took on Him -there,
And Calvary covers it all.
~ But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on Him, and by His wounds we are healed ~ (Isaiah 53.5)
Calvary covers it all? Unfortunately that translates into “I said the prayer, so I don’t need to change the way I live. I’m forgiven for past, present and future.” Ultimately, that phrase denies everything that we discuss here.
How Much More
O Suzanne! Once we bow before the tslav of Calvary, once we view Who it is who is hanging there, once we Hear him say to us- “Father, forgive them..”- “Change” will occur! A change of mind, a change of heart, a change of desire, a change of “want-to”- All are included “At the Cross.”
Who came up with the ludicrous idea, “because we are saved” -we can sin all we want to!- No sir. No m’am! His words to us (also) are- “Go, and sin no more!” Paul also answers this “sin question” by giving this bit of good news: ~ sin shall no longer have dominion (authority) over you! ~ (Romans 6.14). Sin shall no longer be your master! – Why is this so? Because we now serve a new Master! Our resurrected Redeemer and Living LORD. One who conquered Death, Sin and the Grave, and One who ever lives to make intercession for us.
Since I said “the prayer?” I’ve done more “repenting” since I stammered through the original prayer “Father, forgive me”- than I ever did before! And this praying is far from over! “Pray without ceasing” is an ongoing occurence! I pray more now than ever before! “Prayer” (as the young people might say) is “where it’s at! –
God has ~ saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (the Ruach Hakodesh) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.. (Titus 3.5)
Friends, now that we belong (lock,stock and barrel) to Him- do we (really) want to sin? May I list for you at least 50 reasons “not to sin?” (Starting with this: Sin is stupid!) And while we’re here, I’ll list another 50 why we should (all) “bow the knee!”
Neither are we “saved” to sit, (soak and sour) but to serve! Get up, and go! Go find someone, (anyone God brings across your path, and love on them, serve them today!
I’ll end with this prayer: “Thank you for the cross, LORD! – Thank You for the price You paid!! To ransom or redeem someone ( a slave to sin?) a price must be paid! Mercy “there” was great and grace was free, – Free to us, but at what price to Him? The price for our salvation was the blood of a Lamb. A Perfect Lamb without blemish or spot.
~ How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ~ (Hebrews 9.14)
Carl, I don’t think you actually responded to the question. You hold the cross in high esteem, as well we should, but you don’t seem to want to engage in the discussion of the PURPOSE of the cross. You just repeat the usual evangelical mantra “Jesus died on the cross for my sins” rather than dealing with the issues of grammar and culture that suggest otherwise. It isn’t much value to simply preach the message most of us have heard 52 times a year from the pulpit. We want to know WHY the theology makes claims that no Jew in the first century could have believed. That’s the issue. Not the Christian theological reappraisal even if it comes from the reformers (by the way, that theory of atonement was not part of the early church fathers).
Carl, you said: He provided for Abraham, and He provided for us- At Calvary. Have you read Skip’s book Cross Word Puzzles? It clearly presents and documents with scripture a different view of this — that He provided for Abraham and for us “before the beginning of time.” At Calvary, He conquered the last enemy: Death. A great read.
YES YES YES YES YES YES!
The VERY BEST explanation I have ever seen between GOD’S version of Tolerance, which, to summarize Skip, is to create the POSSIBILITY for disobedience, and then to delay judgment of that disobedience. I am going to have to copy this for sure. Thank you!
The older I get, the more I am convinced that the devil is not original. He cannot make up ANYTHING. He can only copy and plagiarize. The subject of tolerance appears to be no exception. Where we see the original, we should expect to find a counterfeit that lays as close to that original as possible; and with that I will say that the devil is a good liar. He can manufacture Ivory soap percentages of purity all day long! His version of tolerance SEEMS to be just and fair. The world’s version of ‘tolerance’ is not that there is no desire for right relating with God self and others – oh no, that desire is hardwired in us: we all know that we have to have that: no, the world’s version of tolerance falls short of the mark simply because it is the best it can do without God. We have to overlook our differences to be close to each other. We have to believe that God will not punish us for sins we cannot help doing, and we have to ’embrace’ our own fear, and negotiate with it, because we lack a way to be free of it. This is the best that we in the flesh can come up with. It is bad not because it isn’t trying; it is bad because it doesn’t work.
This leaves the righteous in a conundrum. How do we achieve TRUE tolerance – righteous tolerance – in a world that is primed to recognize a version of tolerance that is built of ropes of sand? How do we model the tolerance of heaven?
It should be sobering to understand that, in the process of just saying no to the devil’s version, we can be caught in the trap of being judged BY THE WORLD”S STANDARDS, which are a much lower benchmark than God’s standards, and still be found wanting in justice, if we have not succeeded in correctly replacing the faulty tolerance standards of the world with the more excellent tolerance of heaven. In the name of standing up against evil how often do we fall short of compassion and community? Conversely, how often do we, in the name of ‘tolerance’ -of ‘getting along’ – turn a blind eye to evil in others, and even ourselves, and then expect God to do the same for us, instead of standing up for the Law?
How do we accomplish the true tolerance of heaven; a place where we will always find justice and truth, mercy and righteousness, TOGETHER? A place that allows free choice, defends the right for that choice, even, but then, does not immediately slay for a choice incorrectly made. How do we go about that in our homes with our families; in our communities, and in the world? How does this look different than the world’s version of mercy, which is ‘tolerance’, which is always going to conflict with the world’s version of justice, which is eye for eye. The world, the way I see it, has an even worse conundrum. The best that it can do is to alter the law so as to make what it is already doing not a crime. That is exactly what it is doing with its version of tolerance. We choose to overlook the things that separate us in the name of getting along. Hmmmm
So, if we model heaven, then we learn how to let others mess up, but delay reaction to that mess so as to give them time to correct it. We continue to love and stay close, even though they may be acting ugly and pushing us away. The world does not know how to do this, because it lacks the Way to do this. It is stuck with EXCUSING because it has no good way to forgive. Forgiveness presupposes that there is a breach in a law: forgiveness reaches across that breach. ‘Tolerance’ can only pretend that there is no law, and look the other way.
The tolerance of the world leaves us still all alone. It has no real power to heal those breaches because it does not recognize the claims of the Law. True forgiveness must ride on the steed of Law, but then, it also has the only power that can reach across that breach of love. Forgiveness is the true way to heal relationship: tolerance can only ignore it. Forgiveness is the tolerance heaven has to offer. When we throw away the Law, we then are left bereft of the only way to relate. Forgiveness honors that Law of Relating, and thus provides the remedy for the breaking of it. Tolerance is no longer needed where there is no breach in the Law. If we forgave each other, we would not need to tolerate each other. Tolerance is the devil’s way to keep us from true forgiveness. It is hell’s substitute for healing relationship, and all we are left with at the end of that day is a shattered law, and isolation. Tolerance is not love.
Hi Lauretta,
Have I missed something? 🙂 please help me to understand, and please pardon my bluntness 🙂
What I see today is a fundamental change in the meaning (or emphasis) of the word Tolerate, it now, invariably, includes the term accept. We are berated as bigoted (and worse) if we do not accept their behaviour, belief, lifestyle etc.
Forgiveness is freely given by me to someone who exhibits a change of heart, who is prepared to turn their life around; repents. Do I have to accept aberrant behaviour? Can I tell someone that God will forgive them without their repentance, He will tolerate/accept a behaviour that he has already told us is unacceptable?
Um, nope, Kevin, I don’t think you have missed it at all. To ‘accept’ someone BECAUSE they are fracturing relationship is an utter impossibility, if you think about it. Forgiveness can accept someone IN SPITE OF their fracture behavior, but to be asked to look the other way while someone is actively engaged in NOT RELATING TO ME is requiring me to hate something about ME (specifically, I am being asked to ignore or to trash the standard of relationship that I am holding to) in order for them to remain ‘comfortable’ around me.
I think you have the definition of proper forgiveness just fine. I think you have the definition of the world’s understanding of ‘tolerance’ just fine, too.
What tolerance does not understand, and forgiveness must, is that there is a difference between a person made in the image of God, and a person born into an abstract called ‘original sin’. I understand that, to see myself as YHVH sees me, I must see the person He created in His image and pronounced “very good”. All other unholiness was added after that fact, and is precisely what is NOT ME. I think the concept of original sin carries within its diabolical self the notion that I started flawed, and flawed being my ESSENTIAL NATURE, I must ‘work’ my way out of that hole. If someone wants to love me if my very nature is flawed, then they will have to love my fleas. Tolerance starts from the platform that our flaws are endemic and cannot be remedied. Forgiveness says, not so. Forgiveness can see with the eyes of faith that wonderful person we were created to be, and as an action of faith, clears a runway through the fleas that are NOT WHO THE PERSON REALLY IS, so that love has a chance. The old preachers used to tell us to love the sinner, but not the sin. They were preaching this understanding that “I” can be separated from my junk and what remains is the real me. Forgiveness separates the sin from the sinner. It forgives the sinner, without having to accept the sin.
To confuse these two, which we have been trained in countless ways to do, is understandable. We hear “forgive”, and are trained to act with ‘tolerance’. We hear “tolerance”, and think we have to forgive unrepentant evil, because to tolerance, there is NO difference between the sin and the sinner; it requires us to excuse the sin in the name of loving the sinner. Despite all their protests to the contrary, all humanistic platforms essentially have to start from the concept of original sin, because we have to start where we find our flawed selves if we are to worship ourselves as the highest there is. If we see imperfection, then the only recourse there is is to either embrace our fracture flaws (imperfections) or to re-define imperfection (relationship fracture); in other words, to re-write the Law. But to remove the Standard is to remove all chance for correction – to remove all chances for a move toward true relationship. There is no room for improvement in tolerance. The action of tolerance is to embrace our fracture. Forgiveness is the act of restoring the fracture. I create a place in my heart when I forgive for myself to be free to make a move toward relationship, or for the other person to be able to make a move toward relationship. It does not restore relationship per se, but it restores the POTENTIAL for it. It clears my heart to love them. Tolerance says there is no real platform for love; ‘getting along’ is the best we can do.
And yet another piece of the jigsaw falls into place 🙂
I just don’t know if I’m down with this word, “tolerance!” But let’s ask ourselves- Does God “tolerate” us? – or does He (amazingly) love us?
~This is how we have come to know Love: He laid down His life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers ~ (1 John 3.16)
And where did He “lay down His life for us?” While we’re here.. why not follow through and ask the “flying five”- Who?, what?, where?, when? and (perhaps most importantly- “why?”
The cross of the Chosen One reveals much. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight we see Love clearly defined. ~This is Love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and has sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins ~ (1 John 4.10)
Skip, In this Word for Today on Tolerance you used the word “risked” (He risked the …….)..Does this imply God was taking a chance not knowing the outcome ?
You understand the implication correctly. Now go read God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience to see why I said that. But be prepared to set aside the usual Greek idea of time and its philosophical and theological results.
In His willingness to risk the creation (Godly tolerance?), did God also set a limit for the amount of resistance to His purpose that He would allow?
I’ve been thinking about tolerance from the perspective of how our bodies work with insulin and glucose. The body will “tolerate” periodic swings in glucose (sugar) levels by adjusting the amount of the hormone (insulin) that is released from the pancreas. However, when we repeatedly take in more glucose than is needed for cell energy, the body begins to develop a resistance to the effects of insulin, that is, the body begins to tolerate higher amounts of glucose without showing symptoms of illness, while at the same time it is becoming increasingly resistant to the beneficial effects of insulin. So the insulin levels may be going higher, and the glucose is going higher, but you don’t feel sick until you are in crisis (coma), which is often how insulin-resistant/type II diabetes is first discovered in a child.
So, I’m not really sure where I’m going with this — but, it seems there is a relationship between tolerance and resistance, and that in God’s economy, it is a measured relationship. I don’t mean measured in a way that we can define, like two sins are OK, but three are resistance. But, I wonder if, as a system, there might be a point of crisis (like diabetic coma) during which tolerance and resistance have reached a point of mutually assured destruction?
If that is so, then might the difference between God’s “tolerance” and the current cultural definition be that the culture expects “tolerance” without resistance and without risk of destruction?
Thanks for this great example. By the way, this is the principle of addictive tolerance, and the reason why more and more substance is needed to achieve the same results. As for God’s tolerance, I think He certainly has limits. The Scriptures bear out the fact that at some point He says “Enough” and judgment comes. But love demands risk and risk entails freedom of choice NOT to obey. Nevertheless, as you point out, there are always consequences.