Jeremiah 7:31

In a thread that was closed, I posted three verses from Jeremiah that said the children of Judah were sacrificing their children to idols. God said he never commanded this sin, neither came it into his heart or mind.

Jer 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

Some here implied I was an Open Theist because I took this verse literally, that the sin of sacrificing their children did not come into God's mind or heart.

Here is what John Gill said of this verse, I am only including that part where he addressed "neither came it into my heart" for brevity.

Please note where I have highlighted in red where John Gill said that this sin was no so much as a thought of God's, never desired, and even less commanded by him.

So, how do those that believe God decrees/ordains all things that come to pass deal with Gill's interpretation (which I happen to agree with)?

In addition, God spoke similar in Jer 19:5 and Jer 32:35

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

In the earlier thread, Havensdad argued that when God said, "neither came it into my mind" that he was referring to his own command. I disagreed and argued that the word THAT shows that God was speaking of this sin, not his command. The phrases, "neither came it into my mind" is connected to the next phrase "that they should do this abomination".

What say you?

 

I agree.

I do not know when God knew this, see my argument below.

Yes. And aren't decrees commands?

The problem with this explanation (for me) is that it argues God does not know how to properly express himself. This statement (to me) seems to say just what it says, that this sin never occurred to God. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe God infinitely intelligent, and able to properly express himself without being misleading.

Obviously God knew of this sin, otherwise he could not speak of it. And God did allow it, although he pronounced severe judgment on the people for this sin. So it did not go unpunished.

We are no better today. I can't help that believe some folks sacrificed their children not to worship their false god, but to rid themselves of responsibility.

 

I don't know that this is so, what did Jesus say?

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Despite what others have implied, I am no Open Theist. I simply read scripture for what it says. And here Jesus said a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unless the Father allows it. He also said that the hairs of our head are all numbered. So God is absolutely in control.

We say that God allows sin, and sin certainly does occur. But isn't it necessary that God allow us to sin? How could he judge us as sinners if he did not allow us to sin?

You might rob a bank someday. God could kill you before you do that to prevent it. But can he judge you as a bank robber if you never actually robbed a bank?

There was a movie years ago with Sylvester Stallone. He went to the future. In the future, the police arrested people before they could commit a crime. Pretty wild. But there is an important moral here, can you arrest someone because they might potentially commit a crime? We all have the potential to do most anything. The law does not arrest and convict someone for their potential evil, in a sense the law itself is bound to let crime occur.

Do you follow what I am saying?

 

Glad you agree, that is why I posted these verses, because the scriptures say this particular sin did not come into God's mind or heart. He never commanded it, so it cannot be decreed, can it?

That is the question I would like to ask you, did God decree that this sin in Jer. 7:31 take place?

 

Well, I'm asking you, did God decree that this sin in Jer 7:31 would take place?

 

How could it be a decree if he didn't command it? Isn't the definition of decree a royal order or command?

Pretty interesting, I had to search about ten commentaries before I could find anyone who would discuss this verse. Even ol' Matthew Henry completely skips over Gods statements that he did not command this sin and that it never came into his mind and heart.

So much for theologians. Obviously many do not like to deal with these verses. Check and you will see, most skip right over it.

Gotta give Gill credit, he called it like he saw it.

 

Why don't you answer the questions asked you before you ask a question? Reminds me of another frequent poster who uses this technique.

Did God decree this sin in Jer. 7:31 or not? A simple yes or no will do.

As far as God knowing, how could he speak of this sin if he did not know of it? Now, when he knew, I cannot say for certain.

 

Is God unable to properly express himself? He said he didn't command this sin. But he said more, he said it did not come into his heart and mind.

I hardly think Gill was an Open Theist, but he came to the same interpretation as I did. And this interpretation is natural, not forced, God said it did not come into his heart or mind. That is very direct and simple language.