I have said what I needed to say, @Brakes, even though it was not welcomed, and I remain firm in that conviction because it is grounded in the text, not in sentiment or popularity.
The Messiah Himself is described in Scripture as a man marked by sorrow and suffering, not by ease or acceptance. Isaiah writes, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” ~Isaiah 53:3. The Hebrew phrase is אִישׁ מַכְאֹבוֹת (ish makʾovot), literally a man characterized by pains, ongoing sorrows, not occasional sadness. He is also said to be וִידוּעַ חֹלִי (vidua choliy), knowing sickness or grief by intimate experience, not by distance or theory.
Isaiah continues, “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” ~Isaiah 53:4, using נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, to bear, to lift up) and סָבַל (saval, to carry as a heavy load), verbs that denote real weight, real affliction, real cost. This suffering is not metaphorical, it is substitutionary and experiential. He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” ~Isaiah 53:5, with מְחֹלָל (mecholal, pierced, profaned) and דָּכָא (dakaʾ, crushed, broken down) describing violence done to Him, not merely emotional distress.
So when I speak plainly and refuse to soften what Scripture makes sharp, I do so in alignment with the Messiah Himself, whose path was marked by rejection, suffering, and truth spoken without compromise. If that posture is unwelcome, so be it. The Servant was not welcomed either, yet He remained faithful, and that is the pattern I follow.
@KPuff is still on my case after a critical review on the reknown Quacker’s Trueblood’s book “The Humor of Christ" which he believes is biblically sound.
Something to consider re our Western, cultural mindset.
Ethnocentrism is the broad framing error, where one’s own cultural lens is assumed to be neutral, universal, or even divinely normative, so God is interpreted through Western categories such as individualism, therapeutic well being, rights language, or rationalism rather than covenant, holiness, and communal identity.
Cultural imperialism in the theological sense sharpens that error by highlighting power and imposition, where Western values are not merely assumed but actively imposed on Scripture, forcing the biblical text to conform to modern sensibilities rather than allowing Scripture to confront and unsettle them.
Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism describe the inward turn of this mistake, where God is reshaped according to human expectations and cultural comfort, with anthropomorphism assigning culturally specific human traits to God, and anthropocentrism recentering theology around human needs, emotions, and priorities rather than God’s self revelation.
Eisegesis names the methodological failure at the textual level, where cultural assumptions are read into Scripture, often unconsciously, replacing historical, linguistic, and covenantal context with modern categories that the text itself never authorizes.
Syncretism describes the end result when this process hardens, where biblical revelation is blended with cultural ideology in a way that no longer allows Scripture to correct the culture, producing a hybrid theology that feels Christian but is no longer text governed.
Taken together, these terms accurately describe the attempt to domesticate God into a Western framework, not because memory is lacking, but because this problem is multifaceted, and it takes a cluster of precise terms to expose it fully and honestly.
In light of the above, and studying Isaiah 53, no, YHWH does NOT have a sense of humor.
Now I have said my piece, you guys can slog this out.
To be frank, no offense, KP is playing the victim here and I don’t have the time or inclination to indulge him.
We, as Christians, should be joyful as I have shared scriptures on that.
Should this post disappear, no problems, I know where I stand.
Does this address your question clearly, brother?
J.
