Is God Really Like That
WHAT GOD IS REALLY LIKE!
Images of God That Cause Unbelief or Despair
MIKE EDWARDS
This is the original book I wrote when I started putting some of my writings in book format on my website. I can’t remember exactly but I would guess I finished this book around 2012-13 or so. You will see on my website that I have written possibly hundreds of posts since then at: Recently, I identified about seventeen personal convictions about what God is really like that may give more hopeful attitudes about God since our understandings of God determine our attitudes about God. My more recent Books and Posts will provide some fresher insights on the topics I write about which you may want to read. My views of Gods since writing my first book have not changed for the most part, but I hope that I write with more clarity as I age. Thanks for reading.
Mike August 22, 2016
Contents
Foreword 3
Summary of Chapters 5
3
Section I
1. God’s Openness– Does What We Believe About God’s Character Matter? 9
2. Spiritual Apathy – What Is There To Not Believe? 14 14
Section II
3. God And Evil – How Do They Coexist? 21 21
4. God And Suffering – Does God Cause Suffering And Why Doesn’t He Stop It? 37
5. God And Prayer – Why Bother? 49 47
6. God And The Future – Does God Predetermine Or Know The Future? 60
7. God And Salvation – Is There A Quota On God’s Grace? 75 69
8. God And Glorification – Is God Obsessed With His Own Pleasure? 91
9. God And Hell – Is God A Sadistic Torturer? 101
10. God And Guidance – If God Doesn’t Speak, How Can We Know His Will in Our Life? 107 101
11. God And Forgiveness – Must We Forgive Those Who Don’t Admit Wrongdoing? 114
12. God And Women –Does God Favor Men Over Women As Leaders And Teachers? 128
138
Appendixes
I – A Brief Explanation To God, Evil, and Suffering 145
II - Brief Excerpts on God, Evil, and Suffering 146
III - Why I Believe God Has Not Foreordained Evil 148
IV - Confessions Of A Skeptic 153
V - A Model To Explain God’s True Nature Is Necessary 155
VI - Open Versus Traditional Theism – Does God Know The Future? 157
Questions For Discussion 169 151
My Prayer 170 157 161
Bibliography 171 162
+All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible: Today’s New International Version (TNIV), Copyright 2001 by New York International Bible Society.
++All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission
+++God is referred to both male and female images such as a pregnant woman crying out in labor (Isaiah 42:14). The gods of the nations in biblical times were described as either male or female. By contrast, the Jews did not speculate about the “masculinity” of God, and God is never ever referred to as male in the Bible. There are language limitations when referring to God by gender, but both male and female best describe God’s image (Genesis 1:26). Most languages do not have gender-neutral pronouns. It would be distracting when using a pronoun to refer to God that I used the word He/She. It would be too impersonal to refer to God as “It.” I believe we best capture God’s essence when we think of God as our Perfect Heavenly Parent as opposed to just our Heavenly Father, especially for those who have a poor example of an earthly father. For conventional reasons only, I have chosen to refer to God as He. Also, I have chosen to capitalize the pronoun when referring to God because of who He is.
Foreword
I have concluded after years of study that the answer to “Why, God” when it comes to issues such as evil or suffering is not all that complicated. The chaos we are in is because of the freedom God allows humans. We have brought this mess on ourselves. Humans interfere with others’ freedom for their own selfish reasons; thankfully, God does not act like humans in a world full of evil and suffering. God honors freedom, but God has not abandoned us in this world of chaos. Those who desire further details, rather than just the simply explanation of freedom, I hope you enjoy reading what has been a life long pursuit to understand God’s ways and thus ultimately His character through Scriptures.
I now realize all my studies these past twenty-five years about God concerned aspects of His nature that I felt prohibited others from understanding who God truly is. (See Appendix: Confessions Of A Skeptic) I did not realize that someday I would write about them all under the title of one book. It was not until I attended seminary for a year in the 1980’s that I understood many godly, biblical scholars, who believed in the supernatural guidance of the Bible by God, had differing views about subjects I write about. For example, I was taught a view of Hell in which unbelievers would be punished and tortured forever by fire. Everything I sensed about God and read in the Bible did not suggest such a seemingly, sadistic nature. I was taught and thus assumed the Bible advised husbands were the spiritual leaders of the home. I came to understand through my own marriage and helping couples with marital problems, that for men to have any authority over their wives was a dangerous thing. I couldn’t understand why the Bible would support a viewpoint that seemingly subjected women to abuse.
I studied all these subjects because initially what I was being taught about the Bible my rational and relational senses said otherwise. Also, I had a hard time explaining supposed characteristics of God to others. It was almost as if God couldn’t be explained to the common senses; I had to tell others to just accept by faith certain aspects of God to be true. Personally, I would have been willing to do so if necessary. God no longer had to prove Himself to me. As it turns out, I am convinced God makes perfect sense to all seeking a personal relationship with Him. We don’t have to assume God has certain mysterious characteristics that have to be accepted by not understood.
I had in mind two main audiences when writing this book. First, there may be those who seek a personal relationship with their Creator but hesitate because of teachings they have heard about God on issues such as hell, women, evil, or suffering. What we understand about who God is can profoundly influence our relationship with our Creator. Granted, spiritual apathy is rampant. I understand and am often discouraged that many are not interested in spiritual matters. I have this great relationship with my Creator that helps me to understand the world, cope with stress, and to look forward to eternal life, but many are not interested in hearing my story. The resurrection of Jesus can be defended based on reliable historical evidence, but amazingly not everyone cares to investigate further the implications of this miraculous event. For those though that are spiritually curious and struggle with some aspect of God’s character, I hope this book helps.
Secondly, I wrote with those in mind who already have a personal relationship with God, but they struggle to accept certain aspect of God’s nature they have been taught is the only biblical view. I believe the views I express here are biblical and enable one to have more of an intimate relationship with God. Also, one may be more able to explain our loving God to others who will listen. For example, I began having a more intimate relationship with God when I came to understand that suffering is a by-product of a free world and not some foreordained plan by God. I do not have to explain to others a God who supposedly tortures by fire forever those who reject Him. Humans may not even act that way toward their enemies. Election in Scriptures does not suggest God has selected only certain people for heaven; there is not a quota on God’s grace.
I want to thank Janet for being my wife all these years and sharing life together. Just as I thought in 1982, I still believe she is the perfect woman for me. I truly feel blessed because of our relationship. Also, a father could not hope for three greater children than Alison, Kate, and William. They are three of my best friends. I love to brag about them to others, but to do so here would not necessarily bring them great joy. They have had to listen to me speak often about God and aspects of His character, because I am desperate for them to know God the way I know Him and not misunderstand Him. I have fallen so short of God’s moral expectations for my life, but I know He stills loves me and I can only hope something I say help others draw closer to Him. I am grateful to my friend Tim who was an encourager in my writings, which I needed since I feel inadequate as a writer. I am forever grateful to Mom and Dad for introducing me to our awesome Creator.
There are men and women who are far more qualified academically to write on subjects discussed in this book than I am. I am indebted to authors such as Philip Yancey, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, Craig Keener, Walter Kaiser, and others who write so much more elegantly than I. They have been like mentors to me. I attempt to give appropriate credit when I am able to track down where past personal writings originated, though I am responsible for conclusions I make regarding God’s character. This book would not be possible if these men and women had not been faithful to their God by exercising their gift of writing on difficult topics about the nature of God. See the bibliography for entire books written on subjects I discuss only in a short chapter.
Finally, I admit I feel very strongly about my viewpoints, but there are sincere, godly men and women who hold opposing views. I have tried to not be disrespectful. If Christians cannot disagree in love, what do we have to offer others? The “Truth” is what God inspired the biblical writers to understand and write to their audiences. But such teachings were written in languages other than our own and written thousands of years ago in a different culture, so the intended meaning by the author requires diligent study by the reader. I would suggest for an overview of the contents of the different chapters in this book, read the first Chapter, which includes a summary of chapters to follow. It is not necessary to read chapters in Section II in order. Though some of the later chapters make references to ideas in earlier chapters, the chapters by themselves can be understood for the most part. I suggest reading those chapters that interest you the most first. One might read a chapter first to get an overview, then if interested reread the chapter more closely with a Bible to look up the passages in context for further study and understanding.
Summary of Chapters
I know many will read this book and think I believe God is simply a bystander or at best minimally involved in our lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just believe the Bible suggests God is a tremendous respecter of freedom. Human parents who respect freedom are not necessarily indifferent. God understood love without true freedom was not genuine. God is not going to force Himself on others. Forced love is neither genuine nor most desirable. God gave His creations a right to oppose His ways, but God did not abandon us. God will work to change us and save as much of the world from humans as possible, if we are willing. If only we would return back to God His love for us, a world of hurt would go away. Without His influence this world would be even more chaotic.
Evil was not present in the beginning because God created a world that was perfect. Evil is not something created or a thing of itself; evil stems from misguided desires and the freedom to choose. God created a world where people have free will. With the opportunity of love must be the opportunity to hate, if there is to be genuine freedom. God risked creating us for the same reason parents risk bringing children into an already corrupt world – the possibility of relationship. But, God is not like humans sometimes. He does not destroy at the first hint of evil; He perseveres in hopes of change. Natural evil as well, such as earthquakes or birth abnormalities, has evolved out of our opposition to God. Our rebellion against God has triggered all sorts of personal and physical destruction including death, relationship problems, and natural calamities. God’s ultimate response to evil is the slow, necessary way of the Incarnation. In an attempt to change the world and turn as many people as possible from evil, God sacrificed His Son to account for our sin, to serve as our moral example, and to offer freedom life after death.
Suffering seems to fall into three categories – self-inflicted, inflicted by others, and suffering resulting from natural as opposed to personal evil. Evildoers cause much of suffering, directly or indirectly, thus suffering inflicted by others is a by-product of freedom. Suffering caused by natural evil also is brought on by sin. Spiritual death, as a result of opposing God, lead to a chain reaction from the beginning of Adam and Eve that has lead to many natural evils. For instance, genetic defects have formed over generations, leading to birth abnormalities. Suffering is not some grand scheme by God. Suffering was not God’s original intention or design. We can believe God cannot create life in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering, and struggle and yet there be free will. The fact that God gave up control for the sake of freedom does not mean that He doesn’t grieve, that He does not response to suffering, or that He does not suffer as well. God is sovereign but this does not mean people are not free to oppose God. God though does not abandon us and He works to bring good from evil intended by others. Suffering can be an opportunity to draw nearer to God out of necessity and draw others nearer to God by our example, as did Christ’s suffering.
Prayer is our vital link to developing a personal, intimate relationship with God. Since our Creator is not visible and does not speak audible to us, prayer is our communication link. One may demand or wish God to be more direct like He was in the Bible, but God’s direct communication and mighty miracles did not lead to a changed world. I am not soured on prayer, but we must take into account that we are free creatures. I have argued for a more mature view of prayer. Prayer is not manipulating God to run the world the way we might. Prayers in the Bible teach us we can request miracles, but a time comes when we must accept God’s answer and move on. Prayer can be an excuse for inactivity. Often, God is simply waiting on us to be an answer to prayer. We should not assume God does not care when we are not relieved of our emotional or physical pains. Though suffering was not God’s original design, the argument can be made against preventing suffering as a natural consequence for opposition to God. Experiencing only pleasures and no pains can prevent necessary, long-lasting changes.
God does not predetermine the future, so we do not have to logically assume God foreordained or foreknew evil and suffering. God does not hate sin while secretly willing it. Biblical references to human freedom, divine emotions, and conditional prophecy do not support a fixed future. For example, Exodus 32:14 says God “relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” Numerous other passages are emotional jumbo if the future is not open. God works with His creations to bring about a future where evil does not have to dominant. Freedom was one of God’s initial creative acts. History isn’t decided in advance; things happen contrary to God’s will. Many may derive some comfort or security with the belief that God controls all things, but such a comfort may come at too high a cost to God’s character and priority on freedom. The future does not have to be fixed for God to be in control. God’s unimaginable knowledge of the future since He can be everywhere in the universe at the same time along with His power to act intentional to bring about circumstances, allows the possibility for genuine human freedom and an open future. Jesus is the ultimate example of how God is always working to bring good from the evil choices of others. God will eventually win over evil, often in this world but certainly in the world to come.
God does not choose salvation and eternal life for some while electing others to eternal damnation. God does elect nations such as Israel and individuals such as Moses and Paul as messengers for the Good News of salvation to all who will listen. God’s grace is universal; there is not a quota on who can have eternal life. A few biblical passages at first reading seem to suggest God preordains everything before it happens, including one’s salvation. A closer investigation of passages such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 reveal God has elected and preordain Christ to be the Savior for those who desire saving. Scriptures speak of God’s grace being universal, “who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (I Tim. 2:4)
God is the only Being in the universe that the pursuit of His own glory is the ultimate loving act. God’s glory is not self-infatuation. To glorify God is to love oneself and others. God seeks His own glory to enable the Creator and creation to best enjoy life together forever. God forbid false idols. They don’t really exist. Should God stand by while we pursue false idols in vain, or should God encourage people to follow the only true God? God must be for Himself if He is to be for us. If God were to abandon the goal of His own self-exaltation, we would be the loser. To glorify God is to love oneself and others. A wise parent who has their child’s best interest in mind seeks a child’s respect because to do so points a child down the road to success. Parents should seek to live their lives in such a way that they can advise their children to “honor them in all they do.”
Hell is real. We must choose whether to be with God in heaven after death or permanently separated from our Creator. The traditional view suggests hell is a place of eternal torture after death. This view of God is much too sadistic. A more plausible, biblical defensible view suggests hell is not an eternal torture chamber. Instead, hell is a day of accountability with one’s Creator in which punishment and eventual death and permanent separation from one’s Creator is a reality. “For the wages of sin is death…” (Rom 6:23) Those who refuse God choose their own destination. The imagery used to describe this day is a not a pretty sight for sure. The duration of final punishment is everlasting, but the Bible does not necessarily teach God will torture forever those who refuse His love. Even humans may not choose to do this to their enemies, though we may go overboard with justice. Who better to handle justice fairly than the one and only God?
God’s guidance is not a mystery. To assume the future is predetermined may lead some to believe we can only do one job or marry one person and be in God’s will. The Bible suggests God invites us to participate with Him to bring the future into being. Since the future is not predetermined other than what God has promised to carry out (i.e. Jesus’ virgin birth, death, and resurrection), Christians need not worry about being out of God’s will. If God has a specific task for you to accomplish He will make it crystal clear as He did with Moses in the burning bush. The Bible doesn’t speak of God’s personal, individual will but of His moral will that is a guide for all. We are thus free to initiate and pursue any opportunities we feel best utilizes our God given talents to make this a better world to live in. God’s plan isn’t a detailed blueprint but a general one for us to be set free to love. We know we are in God’s will when we are doing all the good we can, by all the means we can, in all the ways we can, in all the places we can, at all the times we can, to all the people we can, as long as we can.
Forgiveness is an integral part of God’s character. Without forgiveness there are no second chances. When the Bible speaks about forgiving, it is also written or implied the guilty is repenting or admitting their wrongdoing. To insist a victim must forgive their perpetrator when there is no remorse or acknowledgment of sin may actually do more harm than good to both parties involved. There are few passages if any that talk about God forgiving others randomly if not in the context of repentance. I would never advise a victim they cannot forgive their perpetrator, but neither would I suggest the Bible always insist a victim must forgive those who deny any wrongdoing. But, it is important victims leave justice up to God and not continually harbor bitterness. Also, many times in the Bible forgiveness from God was conditioned upon one’s willingness to forgive others. If one is unwilling to forgive others who seek it, one has to question that person’s relationship with God. Actions speak louder than words. Do not doubt God’s willingness to forgive or continually forgive. Many sin the same sin but genuinely regret their actions each and every time. Neither should one doubt the need to repent.
Women are free to pursue roles and responsibilities according to their gifts and expertise. The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts without preference to gender. I Timothy 2:11-15 is the only passage in the New Testament that can be used to possibly support women not taking on teaching or positions of authority. A closer examination of this passage though supports roles were limited because of the presence of false teachers targeting women. Apparently, what was happening in Ephesus was what Eve did to Adam by suggesting he accept false teaching. It is the repetition of the error of Eve that Paul disallows, not a woman’s faithful exercise of her teaching and leadership gifts in the church body. This interpretation lines up with the rest of the Bible that does not limit roles according to gender, though cultural expectations were taken into account. Also, women in the church and wives in marriage are not subordinate to men. To encourage this is to ignore the advice of Genesis 3:16, where God warns in a fallen world men will desire to rule over women and women will desire to depend on man more than God. To encourage men to be “loving leaders” rather than “submission servants” can invite abuse. Submission is a way of life for all Christians.
Chapter 1
God’s Openness
Does What We Believe About God’s Character Matter?
God forbid certain disputable images of God drive people to unbelief and despair. I believe when there is debate concerning the meaning of the biblical text and interpretation regarding the character of God, we should favor the viewpoint that is less of a stumbling block to Christians and those seeking a relationship with God. We should choose the view that is the most satisfying from a relational standpoint. For example, scholars who believe God inspired the Scriptures suggest the Bible teaches hell is a place of eternal torture. Does God keep one alive so they can continue to suffer? Another defendable view suggests hell is a day of accountability with one’s Creator in which punishment and death, thus permanent separation from one’s Creator, is a reality. “For the wages of sin is death...” (Rom 6:23) The imagery used to describe this day is a not a pretty sight and the duration of final punishment is everlasting, but it is reasonable to propose the Bible does not teach God will torture forever those who refuse His love.
God’s Character Matters
Many writers will advise their interpretation about an aspect of God is difficult to understand or to explain based on human logic. I believe it is reasonable to expect God’s ways to make logical sense to the human mind. God’s ways surely are more comprehensible than incomprehensible. It would seem God purposely oversaw the preservation of His spoken word, the Bible, so we might better understand Him. If our minds and hearts are open, our understanding about God’s ways should draw us closer to Him, not confuse or drive us away. As we will see, the story of Job doesn’t necessarily teach that we cannot understand God but that perhaps Job did not fully appreciate God’s challenge in running a universe where freedom was allowed. Perhaps it is a good thing that God does not respond to evil and suffering in the same ways that humans do.
What we understand about God’s nature, and thus His character, can greatly influence our relationship and intimacy with our Creator. The defense of God’s character is important. I understand many people turn away from God for selfish reasons and not because of some confusion about His character. Certain stumbling blocks in the Bible such as the Messiah coming as a servant rather than a ruler is not confusing to the mind, only the heart. Frequently though, people will avoid getting to know God or struggle in their relationship with God because of what they believe or have been taught about His nature. Why follow or seek wisdom from Someone you do not respect or trust? Answers to certain questions can impact one’s pursuit of a relationship with God.
The word “stumbling block” is not used often in the English language. Stumbling blocks in the Bible are obstacles to getting to know God, either initially or on a more intimate level. Some stumbling blocks cannot be removed and are necessary. I Corinthians 1:23 says “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” Preconceived notions about Jesus interfered with recognizing that Jesus was the Messiah predicted. People wished for Jesus to wipe out the Roman Empire and other enemies. Jesus understood the human heart needed changing. Jesus set out the best way to accomplish everlasting change by serving rather than ruling. Today, we still expect Jesus to squash our “roman empires.” We still wish for a life without problems rather than taking into consideration what may bring about everlasting change.
Some stumbling blocks can be removed and may not be necessary. I Corinthians 8: 9 reads: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” Paul goes on to reveal how our actions, though not immoral, can interfere with others’ relationship with God. I would also suggest certain Christian teachings can create stumbling blocks for many in the belief or intimacy process. Most who take the risk of writing or teaching about God accept this burden. Understanding the original meaning of the biblical author intended for his audience, as inspired by God, is not always clear or easy to discern. This is why we have so many differences of opinions among sincere, qualified, biblical scholars. Let’s not question a writer’s sincerity or motives when we have no reason to do so. Most have the motive to reveal their biblical understanding of our loving God to others.
I am proposing when there is debate concerning the meaning of the biblical text and how God acts, we should choose to err on the side of the interpretation that portrays God more logical and rational to the human senses. More importantly, which interpretation portrays a more relational God, which seems a major priority of God’s? My ideas of a loving God suggest Hell has an ending and is not endless torture. I believe if we surveyed people, a huge majority would agree such a view of Hell best represent a loving God. If this viewpoint can be defended biblically, this is how we must portray God to others. Other topics such as suffering and God’s lack of intervention may be challenging to understand, but there are reasonable explanations when taking into account freedom.
God’s Sovereignty
The Bible’s emphasis is much more on God’s openness than deciding history and everyone’s actions in advance. One essential aspect of God’s character concerns what we mean when we say God is sovereign. Most when referring to God’s sovereignty mean that God has unlimited authority, power, or control over His creation and those He created. How we think God uses such power can greatly impact our relationship with Him. God doesn’t always override the freedom of others. We make assumptions and sometimes pray without understanding the challenges a free world presents. One may argue that only if we could see God in action like we do our earthly parents, it may be easier to trust and understand Him. That is suspect though. The Israelites saw miracle after miracle and still struggled. Seeing does not always mean believing.
Some suggest an explanation of God’s sovereignty requires He is the causal agent or the reason that all things happen. Many imply that for God to be sovereign He must “control” or be controlling. If you believe though that God controls every decision made, then when you suffer you may assume God is causing this suffering in life to teach you a certain lesson. God certainly has the power to initiate suffering for punitive reasons, but God is not necessarily the initiator of all sufferings. God does not cause one to drink and drive, resulting in horrible injuries inflicted upon the innocent. Obviously, things happen that are not God’s will, but He will not abandon us. God gave His creations a right to oppose His ways. We can assume God does not wish certain sufferings but He will stand with us hand in hand to bring some good from others’ evil or immoral actions. God did this time and time again in the Bible, culminating in the life of Jesus.
Freedom allowed by the Creator is essential if genuine love is to be present. Forced love is neither genuine nor acceptable by most people. John Sanders in The Openness of God explains best this view and understanding of the nature of the Christian God:
God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give and take relationships with us...God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship, yet he is endlessly resourceful and competent in working toward his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. On other occasions, God works with human decisions, adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being.
Let me briefly summarize what I will defend to mean about God’s sovereignty in the context of evil and suffering. What you believe about God’s nature, thus His actions, can determine if you lean on God relationally in a crisis and whether you are able to explain God to others in a logical, relational fashion. If you are always angry or confused what God is doing in your life, this can be a serious relationship buster. I will suggest God does not create or cause evil (Chapter on God and Evil) nor does God predetermine evil (Chapter on God and The Future). God does not cause all sufferings (Chapter on God and Suffering). Suffering can be self-inflicted because of poor decisions we make, inflicted on us by evildoers because we live in a free world, or the result of living in a fallen world which has lead to natural disasters such as earthquakes and tragedies such as birth defects. Of course, some suffering can be as a result of God punishing wrongdoing. Some use terminology such as “God allows suffering” to protect their view of God’s sovereignty. I would suggest by this we must mean God doesn’t stop all suffering because of freedom, not that He arranges all sufferings to take place regardless of the choices of others.
The Story of the Bible
If I had to summarize the Bible’s storyline it may go something like this: In the beginning God created a perfect world including humans, made in the “image of God,” with the freedom to oppose Him. Man and woman were able to communicate directly with God. Then, the human race chose to rebel; God did not cause a rebellion against Himself! God did not create evil; evil resulted from misguided desires. Evil and suffering, whether brought on by others or us, was a byproduct of freedom. God like humans preferred genuine as opposed to forced intimacy. Job in desperation pleaded to God “Put yourself in my place.” God responded “No, put yourself in my place.” Apparently, the only way to rid the world of problems totally was to not create at all, but God thought relationships were worth the risk. God, unlike humans sometimes, didn’t annihilate those who opposed Him at first. God’s character was one of patience, mercy, forgiveness, and perseverance. God sought to win back the hearts of as many people as possible, so He made a Promise of a Child after sin entered His creation. God worked with individual families: first Adam’s family, later Noah’s, and finally Abraham’s family, the central focus of most of the Old Testament.
As the story continued, God's visibility and miracles seen in the Old Testament and life of Jesus did not change the human heart for the most part. With a few glowing exceptions, the Old Testament recounted failures. God prevented problems and caused prosperity, but this did not bring lasting change. God was always seeking to “break through” to human beings to restore what had been lost. God was the ideal Parent, wanting His children’s happiness and to be at peace with one another. The New Testament fulfilled a Promise mentioned throughout the Old Testament: the birth of a Savior. To turn as many people as possible from evil, God sacrificed His Son. Individual hearts were more persuaded from evil through suffering than power, as evidenced by Jesus’ miracles. God’s visibility, directness, or prevention of problems did not work. After Jesus left the Earth, the Spirit of God descended and filled individual human beings. More than walking in a garden with human beings, God now lived inside them. (See Philip Yancey, Disappointment in God, 145)
Concluding Remarks
We are made in God’s image so God’s ways can make sense from an intuitive standpoint. I think of God as the perfect or ideal Parent. I understand, now that I am not a child, that the ideal Parent doesn’t always give you money or everything you ask more because then I would not learn responsibility. Most of us will agree on what an ideal Parent is. I will think of God in such hopeful terms until proven unbiblical. I will seek to explain God’s ways to others in ways they can understand and accept, until I learn His ways are necessary stumbling blocks. Most could agree on which views are less problematic for those seeking God. That is why writers sometimes are forced to explain why their interpretations may be problematic. It is these viewpoints I suggest we don’t readily accept for fear of keeping one from seeking God. These views can certainly be presented as possibilities but not as likely, because they are difficult to explain how they intuitively fit within the nature of a loving God.
Believing God as opposed to believing in a God leads to asking how I should live. Some wish to continue in their selfish way and not think about or change what their conscience tells them is right. If you push God away and put walls up, it just seems you don’t have to deal with the problem. Most wonder sometimes what awaits us after this life. The truth is we all die one day. Once this initial stumbling block of apathy is dealt with, which I address in the next chapter, most can come to an agreement the way they either hope God is or that they believe is easiest for others to accept God.
If you want to know God seek further understanding. Maybe our questions about God can be explained to our satisfaction that enables us to draw closer to Him and enable us to explain God to others who are seeking answers in their relationship with Him. I am convinced God will honor your desire to know Him more intimately, though you may come to understand God differently than you originally thought. Don’t allow certain disputable, interpretations of the Bible to impede your relationship with God. I pray this book will serve its purpose, to suggest possible answers to your questions that have prevented you from seeking, understanding, or explaining God to others in a rational, logical, relationally manner.
Chapter 2
Spiritual Apathy
What Is There To Not Believe?
I have written this book to provide some answers or hope to those who are earnestly seeking a relationship with God, but are hindered due to their confusion about certain characteristics of God. Character matters in all our relationships, whether divine or human. Leaders, employers, and parents have more devoted followers when respect and understanding is present. What we understand about who God is can profoundly influence our relationship with our Creator and whether we seek a relationship and attempt to draw closer. For example, many who are taught without acknowledgement of other possible interpretations that unbelievers burn forever after death imagine a sadistic God. Many struggle in explaining their God to others because of questions they do not have answers for regarding the nature of God. Hopefully, this book might aid in such discussions.
Apathy: The Human Condition
The truth of the matter though is many don’t pursue a relationship with God for reasons others than questions about His nature or character. Many simply are passive rather than active pursuers of spiritual truth for whatever reason. Most of us are just spiritually lazy. Spiritual apathy is the human plague. Some will raise objections concerning the destiny of those who have never heard about Christ while not giving consideration to their own spirituality, though they have heard of Christ and His claims. Ever notice how it is easier to invite or tell a friend about a great movie rather than invite them to church or discuss God. Send out an invitation to your church as opposed to another event and see how people react differently. It is true many people may fear a friend is trying to change them by inviting them to a church rather than a movie, but notice the difference in a discussion about an earthly matter versus spiritual matter. Both are reasonable for discussion but many are uncomfortable talking about spiritual matters, even if not being coerced to believe a certain way.
Believing in a God is different than believing God. You have heard the saying “Even the devil believes in God.” Satan believes in a God but he doesn’t believe in what comes out of his Creator’s mouth. A diabetic’s knowledge that insulin can save their life is only helpful when they apply this knowledge. John 3:16 says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” It is clear from all of Scriptures that believing God means putting one’s faith and trust in God. In the Bible genuine faith was putting into action God’s advise no matter how often you may fail. Belief without actions is meaningless.
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by actions, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. (James 2:14-19)
Spiritual apathy or blindness seems to have been a human condition from the biblical times until the present. A specific stumbling block mentioned in the Bible was preconceived notions about Jesus, which interfered with recognizing Jesus was the Christ predicted. I Corinthians 1:23 reads “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” A Messiah was predicted from the days of the Old Testament sacrificial system; Jesus was the anticipated ultimate sacrifice. But, we have always rejected a suffering rather than powerful Savior. We want a Messiah who gets us instantly out of trouble. Everyone wants healing without considering what may lead to permanent change. Jesus understood the human heart needed changing. Wiping out the Roman Empire and other enemies would not accomplish this when He was here on earth. Jesus set out to accomplish everlasting change, which Jesus understood would best happen through His sacrificial example than ruling presence. Today, we still expect Jesus to squash our “roman empires ” without consideration of what leads to real change.
We often never consider important implications of our personal beliefs, such as the origins of life. We were either born by chance or intelligent design. Both viewpoints require the same amount of faith. If you believe in chance though, you have no authority to claim any absolutes. Without absolutes, who is to say your views are better or wiser than someone else’s beliefs. If we believe there is a Creator of life, it only makes sense to consult the Designer about living and what leads to real happiness in the long run. Many are not active pursuers of spiritual matters, even though they believe in an Intelligent Designer. Unfortunately, it is human nature that one might not consult their Creator until a crisis visits us. Christians are accused of using religion or God as a crutch. Christians only recognize their need for a crutch sooner than their accusers. We all need help outside ourselves at some point in life. This is an eventual reality but denied until a crisis.
Sometimes, we may not examine spiritual matters for then personal change would have to be considered. An analogy may be our earthly relationships. Many couples don’t always seek the truth from their partner concerning their relationship for this may require taking action to make necessary changes. It may seem easier to live in denial. If we pursue better marriages or a personal relationship with God, we may have to examine our money act, our family act, our sex act, or our entire life act. We would have to examine if we are treating our partners like we are demanding to be treated. If we believe God, not just believe in a God, we would be compelled to turn away from our selfish ways. God’s ways require partners treat one another as if their own body, parents treat their children the way they wished their parents had treated them.
Many may be apathetic or uninterested in God because of their relationship with their earthly father or mother growing up. One may assume their heavenly Parent is like their earthly parent, that God is a reflection of their earthly parents, rather than the perfection of their earthly parents. God is the perfect Parent, the parent we all understand and wish we could be toward our children. Earthly parents often physically or sexually abuse their children. Earthly parents often give gifts with strings attached. Earthly parents often fail to apology for their mistakes. Earthly parents often live their dreams through their children rather than accept and appreciate their uniqueness. No matter our childhood, we must come to realize our parents are not God and God is not necessarily like our Parents.
What Are We Waiting On?
Why don’t we prepare for death? It is inevitable, one hundred percent of the time, that we will all die one day. It doesn’t really matter whether you accept this or not. No one has ever escaped death after being born into this world. We may accept this truth in our life, but many don’t consider the implications of this reality until practically on their deathbed. Sometimes this is the only time we begin to think about God. You don’t hear of many in their older age wishing they had accumulated more toys here on earth. Instead, many regret that they spent time accumulating material matters rather than emphasizing relational matters. Many may do soul searching sooner because of a near death experience that causes them to rethink their priorities in life. It just seems to be human nature that we put off the inevitable, including spiritual matters, until death is staring us in the face.
For many in other countries there may be a crisis everyday, thus why there is openness to a Higher Power. When your belly is empty or you fear for life everyday, even perhaps from your own leaders, you begin to hope for a better life not only on earth but as well the life to come. Many of us Americans are spoiled. Our bellies are not empty; we know where our next meal is coming from. Certainly those who can afford to buy this book can afford to buy their next meal. Since we aren’t starving, since we don’t fear being killed by our leaders, we are comfortable enough to not seek help at this time. It is never too late with God, as we see from the thief on the cross next to Jesus, but why wait until a crisis or old age. Following the wisdom of God ensures life without regrets.
I try not to be too judgmental. I could very well be a spiritually apathetic person were it not for my parents. My belly has never been empty. I have no health problem, and I have not suffered any real tragedies in my life unless self-imposed. The main reason I am interested in seeking absolute truth is because my parents planted this seed in me when I was a young boy. I am not convinced there is anything special about me as to why I am interested in spiritual things and others are not. One main reason I listen to God is because my parents taught me to do so. I am not naive enough to think I am such a good person I would have sought God even if not raised in a Christian home. Perhaps I would not have pursued truth until my first tragedy and maybe even not then. The good news is God is amazingly patient, merciful, and forgiving. God does not abandon us. God does not require we be perfect before we can accept His gift of peace here on earth and eternal life after death. The ultimate stumbling block, belief in God’s way, is necessary and cannot be removed. We cannot live by our own rules. Human rules don’t lead to long-term happiness; God’s laws do. I plead that you actively consider the claims of Christ sooner rather than later. I promise you will have no regrets.
The Resurrection: The Ultimate Example Of Apathy
I don’t need persuading that God exists. I don’t believe for one minute that the world evolved by chance rather than came about by an Intelligent Designer. Both views are theories in the sense we were not there in the beginning to observe what really happened. I just don’t have enough faith to believe in chance, based on the complexity of our world and witnessing the birth of my three children. Similarly, I don't really need convincing that Jesus was really who He claimed to be; He was the Son of God sent down to earth on a mission. Because of my relationship with Him for over 30 years, I have emotionally felt His influence in my life, and I am a much better person for the relationship. Such evidence is subjective but real to millions who have a personal relationship with Christ.
Many want more than circumstantial evidence. Most don’t argue against the historical evidence that Jesus lived; the debate is whether Jesus was who He said He was. We know Jesus lived because there are historical accounts recorded about His life some 20 to 40 years after his death. We have original documents written within a hundred years when Jesus lived. There are no other comparisons when it comes to historical figures. Few doubt Julius Caesar existed, though the earliest copy of his work is dated 1000 years after the original. But, Christianity hangs on whether Jesus actually came back from the grave three days after being hung on a Cross. It is hard for me to believe if this actually didn't happen, that the Christian faith would have been as influential and still alive today. When the disciples spoke of Jesus’ resurrection and people responded with faith, all the authorities had to do was produce the dead body. Other faiths rely on a promise for the future. Christianity relies on an event that has already happened.
If someone declared that they were going to rise from the dead after the third day of their burial, we might pay attention. We might initially write them off as being a lunatic, but if indeed this person did come back from the dead, surely we would take notice and listen to what they had to say. We may even take more notice if years before it had been predicted that this person would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14/Mt. 1:21-22), be born in the city of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2/Lk. 2:4), and sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zec. 11:12-13/Mt. 26:14-15). Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of these prophecies in the Old Testament and performed many miracles to confirm He was the chosen Messiah sent from God. Jesus stated in John 5:36 the power to perform miracles were given to Him by God to prove God had sent Him (see also Jn. 2:23; 10:25,38; 14:11; 15:24).
Jesus either was the Son of God or a liar. His death was not sought because He claimed to be a good man or great teacher; Jesus was crucified because He claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead proves His claim to be God. His tomb was empty. Some may argue that His body was stolen. Do you really think the Romans who were aware of Jesus’ claims (in fact Herod was so concern about a predicted Messiah that he had firstborns killed) that they would leave the tomb unguarded so His followers could then take His body away and claim Jesus had risen from the dead. That takes faith! The tomb was guarded because of Jesus’ prediction (Mt 27:62-66). Jesus Himself on several occasions spanning many months, predicted with uncanny accuracy both his death and resurrection. Matthew 16:21 says:
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (See also Mt. 17:9,22-23; 20:18-19)
Followers recorded that over 500 witnesses saw Jesus after His death, most of whom were living (I Cor. 15:3-8). Surely, the greatest evidence of Jesus’ claims is that eyewitnesses were available to see Him back from the dead. I Corinthians 15:3-8 says:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
When Paul writes these words, he says those who saw Jesus are still living. Obviously, the truth of Jesus being alive could be verified. Still skeptical! Some claim Jesus’ body was stolen and his followers created this elaborate lie He was risen, then 500 eyewitnesses were recruited to perpetuate this lie. To believe this Chuck Colson says in Answers To Your Kids’ Questions:
You would have to be ready to believe that over the next fifty years the apostles were willing to be ostracized, beaten, persecuted, and (all but one of them) suffer a martyr’s death without even renouncing their conviction that they had seen Jesus’ bodily resurrection…the fact is that people will give their lives for what they believe is true, but they will never give their lives for what they know is a lie. (75-76)
If Jesus’ followers were to perpetuate a lie at least they could have done a better job recording those who saw his first appearances. In the Gospel of Mark it records Jesus arose from the dead and appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Women had very little credibility during this time. If you are going to make up a story you don’t begin by reporting a woman being the first eyewitness. Maybe Mary was recorded as the first eyewitness because writers were simply recording the events as they truly happen.
Jesus is unique. Jesus claimed to be God and sinless, not a messenger or some great prophet. All leaders do not make such a claims. Gandhi admits to having evil desires in his autobiography. Jesus claimed to be the way to God; Jesus must be whom He claims. Prophecies of the Old Testament came true by his birth, life, death, and resurrection. Jesus performed miracles in public that were against the laws of nature. Jesus’ tomb was empty. No body was provided, no evidence to the contrary. Eyewitnesses saw Jesus alive after He was put to death. There is sufficient, historical evidence that Jesus’ resurrected. No other leader of Religions even makes such claims. Christianity is alive today because apparently the tomb was empty and the only reasonable explanation for this was because Jesus did what He said He would by coming back from the dead.
I imagine even people who lived during Jesus’ lifetime didn’t check out the facts. They had heard of a man name Jesus and the claims He made, but they may have apathetically thought “just another lunatic claiming to be the Son of God.” Nothing has changed today. Christianity is the only religion that claims that its’ prophet was the Son of God and that He would come back from the death. No religion is going to make such claims unless able to back up or somehow conceal from others the Lie. How many of us check though if the claims about Jesus are true? During the Easter season and the movie Passion of Christ being the frontrunner when first coming out, everyone knows that Jesus claim to be the Son of God and to come back from the dead. Many just do not bother to examine the facts. It is just the human condition. People often don’t believe because of some misgiving about God’s character, but many time people don’t believe because they are simply spiritually lazy or apathetic. It often takes a crisis in one’s life to get their attention that they need divine help.
Conclusion
This chapter may not have been personally applicable for those who are reading this book. Because you are reading this book, you are an active pursuer of God and His truths. Most of us though have the experience of many friends not being open to spiritual discussions. When we attempt to discuss such matters, one would think we are getting ready to inflict torture. We live in a very spiritually, apathetic country. I am not smart enough to figure out all the reasons why other than what I have suggested here. We must struggle though to not withdraw from our friends and continue to be desirous to share the Truth with others. God set the example for us. He never gave up on us and eventually broke though barriers to win us over.
The Israelites had the advantage of being witnesses of many blessing and miracles by the Almighty. But time and time again, they turned to other gods for satisfaction; they failed to follow God’s laws, which were advised for their best interest. God continue to persevere. He cared enough to discipline them for their own good in hopes they would come to their senses. God continually forgave them when they repented. God just keeps on ticking. We must have the same attitude toward apathetic friends. We should consider ourselves fortunate rather than special. We aren’t spiritual apathetic often because of those who have walked before us and encouraged us to be open-minded about spiritual matters. Jesus didn’t always give those He came in contact with a canned evangelistic spiel. He met whatever needs they had. By our example we have to prove to others the God we adore is worth finding out about. We must look for creative ways to approach spiritual subjects, and do so unashamedly, because we have information that brings true internal peace here on earth as well as the assurance of eternal life after death.
Chapter 3
God And Evil
How Do They Coexist?
The subject of God and evil can be a major stumbling block in one’s relationship with God. Why did God create humans if He knew they would rebel against His ways? Why does God allow evil? Why doesn’t God interfere more often against evil? This subject relates to many of the topics throughout this book including suffering, prayer, the future, and hell. All questions about how God and evil coexist cannot be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, but I believe some explanations do more justice to God’s character than others. Most accept that God is not evil. It would then follow that God does not cause or foreordain evil, but somehow illogically hold humans responsible. (See Chapter on God and the Future and Appendix III – Why I Believe God Has Not Foreordain Evil)
God created a world that was perfect and there was no sin in the beginning. God also created a world where people have free will, choosing not to force Himself on humans. It is not logically possible to have free will and not the possibility of moral evil, as genuine freedom necessitates the possibility of evil. With the opportunity of love must be the opportunity to hate if there is genuine freedom. God would have had to create robots programmed to do only what He wanted to ensure that we would not sin and thus there would be no evil. God understood the potential for evil by creating humans, but this does not make Him the originator of evil, any more than human parents are to blame for their children’s sins by simply bringing them in the world. Human beings actualize their potential for evil based on the freedom given them to choose right or wrong. Atrocities such as child abuse are a by-product of God allowing human beings to choose how they act and treat others. Evil is not a thing in of itself created; evil stems from misguided desires. Evil is not some grand scheme by God. God allows the possibility for evil because of Freedom, but this does not make God the orchestrator of evil!
God’s Risk For Love
God created humans realizing they might sin thus resulting in death and a world tainted by sin. God put a tremendous priority on freedom when He created us. Consider a rather fanciful rendition of creation by William Irwin Thompson:
Imagine God in Heaven surrounded by the choirs of adoring angels singing hosannas unendingly…“If I create a perfect world, I know how it will turn out. In its absolute perfection, it will revolve like a perfect machine, never deviating from My absolute will.” Since God’s imagination is perfect, there is no need for Him to create such a universe: it is enough for Him to imagine it to see it in all its details. Such a universe would not be very interesting to man or God, so we can assume that the Divinity continued His meditations. “But what if I create a universe that is free, free even of me? What if I veil My Divinity so that the creatures are free to pursue their individual lives without being overwhelmed by My overpowering Presence? Will the creatures love Me? Can I be loved by creatures whom I have not programmed to adore me forever? Can love arise out of freedom? My angels love me unceasingly, but they can see Me at all times. What if I create beings in My own image as a Creator, beings who are free? But if I produce freedom into this universe, I take the risk of introducing Evil into it as well, for if they are free, then they are free to deviate from My will. Hmmm. But what if I continue to interact with this dynamic universe, what if I and the creatures become the creators together of a great cosmic play? What if out of every occasion of evil, I respond with an unimaginable good, a good that overwhelms evil by springing out of the very attempts of evil to deny the Good? Will these new creatures of freedom then love Me, will they join Me in creating Good out of Evil, novelty out of freedom? What if I join with them in the world of limitation and form, the world of suffering and evil? Ah, in a truly free universe, even I do not know how it will turn out. Do even I dare to take the risk for love?” (Philip Yancey, Disappointment With God, 61)
God’s risk is no more insane than a parent who chooses to have a child born in an already corrupt world where freedoms exist. God at least initially brought children into a perfect world where corruption and death did not exist. We human parents bring children into an imperfect world, knowing they could commit some evil act or experience evil at the hands of others at some time in their life. We know the inevitable truth that they will experience death. I am convinced though as an earthly father that love is worth the risk. Many have more than one child, even after realizing children are not always obedient. The Bible indicates we are made in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God, like humans, obviously felt the potential joy that comes from having a mutual, satisfying relationship was worth the risk of hardships that could result where one is free to not reciprocate one’s love. Though there are many hardships in this life, I am grateful for being created because of the many joys available to me in this life and the life to come. God risked creating us for the possibility of Intimacy!
Job’s Encounter With Evil
God spoke to Satan after “from roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” (Job 1:7) It was as if Satan, after surveying the landscape, didn’t believe anyone would choose God’s ways if they encountered any problems whatsoever. God claimed Job was blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil (1:8). Satan responded though: “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (1:10-11) God then gave Satan extraordinary power to test Job. (1:12) Job’s children were taken from him; Job was inflicted with “painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.” (2:7) We must be careful making too many parallels from this story in our own lives. We should not assume all evil or suffering is some cosmic play between God and Satan. The Bible does not defend this viewpoint. One should not assume if a child is taken from them or if they are inflicted with physical diseases God is allowing Satan to test them. It would seem though we can safely draw the following lessons from Job’s encounter with evil.
The book of Job teaches friends and those suffering from evil to avoid a common assumption when encountering evil. Job’s friends assumed Job had some sin in his life and he needed to repent in order to avoid further punishment. God said Job was righteous (Job 1:8). Always blaming evil or pain and suffering on individual, personal, sin is misguided. Jesus confirmed this insight in the story of the blind man when His audience appeared to be making similarly assumptions as Job’s friends (John 9). Sometimes due to our own actions we suffer consequences, but this is not the only explanation for evil suffered. In a free world people can choose to inflict harm on others. In a free world our sufferings may be the indirect result of someone else’s evil. We should never rush to judgment or think we can completely understand how a free world works.
Job’s story is often sited as evidence that God causes both the good and bad. Job does not prove the God is the author of all things, including evil. Job 2:10 says: “shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” These passages do not declare God the cause of all things, including evil. In fact, in this story Satan is the one who initiates the different tragedies that comes upon Job. Certainly, God permits evil by allowing Satan to test Job severely. All theists must be able to give an explanation as to why their God, if He is all powerful and good, allows evil by not intervening or stopping evil in this world. But, God cannot be accused of hypocrisy, as He did not even prevent evil against his own Son. There must be a reason for God allowing evil that Christians can explain, so they as Job don’t sin “by charging God with wrongdoing.” (Job 1:22; i.e. 2:10)
We should not assume that God responds to evil in the same ways we might. Job was not accusing God of being responsible for evil, but Job eventually wore down and maybe questioned if God cared since God didn’t stop the evil against him. Least we be too judgmental of Job, remember he did not have the vantage point readers do about the cosmic warfare between the Creator and the Evil One. In the midst of suffering it can help to understand that God cares and has not lost control. Maybe Job, as we might, begin to assume God didn’t care when all his problems were not being wiped away. Based on God’s response to Job, God may have thought: “Let’s see you create a world without evil where this is true freedom. Do you somehow know better what evil to permit or not? Who are you to judge me? Are your ways better than my ways?”
The world as it is versus the world as it ought to be – the constant tension between those two states bursts into the open in the Book of Job. For three long, windy rounds, Job and his friends spar in a verbal boxing match. On the ground rules, they agree: God should reward those who do good and punish those who do evil…We still expect a God of love and power to follow certain rules on earth. Why doesn’t he?…When then, does God say in his own defense?
In this book Wishful Thinking, Frederick Buechner sums up God’s speech. “God doesn’t explain, He explodes. He ask Job who he thinks he is anyway, He says that to try to explain the kind of things Job wants explained would be like trying to explain Einstein to a little-neck clam…God doesn’t reveal his grad design. He reveals Himself.” The message being the splendid poetry boils down to this: Until you know a little more about running the physical universe, Job, don’t tell me how to run a moral universe. (Yancey, Disappointment With God, 177, 178, 189-191)
Misguided freedom, whether diabolical or human, does not create a fair world for God or humans. Are we in any position to judge God though? Be slow to judge God’s actions or jump to any conclusions. Remember, if God rid of everyone immediately who has ever caused pain by selfishness, lying, gossiping or harmful remarks, no one would be left. Who of us has lived up to their own standards, much less God’s? We demand instant justice for all accept ourselves. God has proven to be just and forgiving. God did not opt out of suffering Himself, as we will see. God assures those who commit evil and don’t repent, justice will be served one day. We will not always know why God does or doesn’t interfere. We must ultimately accept as Job that God is more capable of running the universe than us and is able to better balance freedom, evil, suffering, and justice than humans can ever pretend to. God’s ways may not always be our ways, thankfully. God doesn’t always interfere with evil because of His Character!
Natural Versus Personal Evil
Understanding the priority God placed on genuine freedom helps to understand many types of evils. Moral evil can be explained by free choice. C.S. Lewis suggested that wars, crimes, and injustices - evils that come about through bad choices made by cruel and lawless people - account for at least 80 percent of mankind's suffering. God’s response to personal, moral evils, which seems to be the emphasis of biblical revelation, is what I focus on the rest of this chapter. It is important though to recognize that there are natural evils, which don’t necessarily result from free choice. Nature does not select victims but can be a random combination of factors. Many evils come about through natural disasters such as floods, diseases, and deformed infants that cannot be traced directly to wrongful actions of others. Though many natural tragedies in the Bible are God’s punishment for disobedience and an attempt to encourage change (i.e. The Flood in Genesis 6-8, Plagues in Exodus 7-12, Famine in II Samuel 21), people want to avoid the trap of Job’s friends and imply that all natural evil can be traced to personal sin. This is so disheartening to people who give birth to a deformed infant or deal with breast cancer, prostrate cancer, or any other kind of physical ailment no fault of their own.
The Genesis account, though often assumed otherwise, does not report God caused physical death, childbirth pain, relationship problems, or all environmental catastrophes unless specifically stated He does so such as the Flood. Genesis warns freedom gone awry will cause progressive deterioration of the physical world as well as the physical body. God could easily predict consequences that were in opposition to His design. After all, God was the Creator of both man and the physical world. Can’t the designer of a car predict certain disasters if the vehicle is not used in the way that is was intended? Can’t parents warn their children of potential consequences if certain choices are made? Sin led to physical death as well as deterioration in the physical world as well. God created a perfect world to the last detail. God intended for humans to have perfect bodies, perfect health, and freedom from natural disasters. When sin entered the picture, it brought with it pain, suffering, and eventual physical death.
Did God cause physical death or was it a natural consequence of sin? God warn Adam from the beginning opposing God’s will would result in death: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”(Gen. 2:17) Was God intentionally tempting Adam and Eve, or did God do the first couple a favor by setting up a “test of obedience” so they would be better prepared for choices in a free world? Wasn’t God warning that self-reliance in a world of freedom is doomed for disaster? God knew freedom misused could be to the demise of Adam and Eve. What loving parent doesn’t warn their children about certain choices? Though I would have no problem if God determined physical death was an appropriate consequence for the abuse of freedom, this is not what the author necessarily had in mind. Adam did live to be 930 years old. (Gen. 5:5) Gradually though due to freedom gone array, life spans decreased. During Moses’ time, the average life span was seventy to eighty years old. (Ps. 90:10) Walter Kaiser, a well respected Old Testament scholar, suggests the meaning of Genesis 2:17 intended by the author in the Hebrew language:
In this case, spiritual death was the immediate outcome of disobedience demonstrated by a deliberate snatching of real fruit from a real tree in a real garden. Death ensued immediately: They became “dead…in transgressions and sins” (Eph 2:1-3). But such separation and isolation from God eventually resulted in physical death as well. This, however, was more a by-product than a direct result of their sin. Spiritual death was the real killer. (Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament, 22)
The author of Genesis is not necessarily saying God caused or created death. A consequence for rebelling against God’s ways is certain spiritual death, leading to all other kinds of potential curses including physical death. Curses can be something God doesn’t have to cause but result from disobedience. Sin has corrosive effects. When children oppose their parents’ moral wishes, natural consequences are inevitable. Similarly, material blessings are not guarantees but often naturally result when we live according to God’s desires, which are always in our best interest.
Genesis 3:16 further reports Adam’s and Eve’s choice to rebel against God had relational consequences both in the marriage and parenting relationship. Did God create or caused childbirth pain or marital problems? Genesis 3:16 says: “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” It has been suggested the more appropriate translation of the first past of verse sixteen referring to childbearing and birth is “unto the woman, he said, ‘A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.’” Kaiser says about this passage:
This translation is not all that different from the more traditional, “I will greatly multiply…” The difference between the two readings is found wholly in the interlinear Hebrew vowel signs, which came as late as the eight century of the Christian era. The difference is this (using capital letters to show the original Hebrew consonantal text and lowercase to show the late addition of the vowel letters): HaRBah AaRBeh, “I will greatly multiply” and HiRBah AoReB, “has caused to multiply (or made great) a lying-in-wait.” The participial form ARB appears some fourteen times in Joshua and is translated as ambush, or a lying in wait.
If this new reading is correct (and some ancient versions read such a word just a few words back in verse 15, probably by misplacement), then that “lier-in-wait” would undoubtedly be that subtle serpent, the devil. He was who would increase the sorrow of raising children. This is the only way we can explain why the idea of “a snare” or “lying-in-wait” still clings to this context.
But another matter demands our attention in verse 16, the word for conception. The translation is difficult because the Hebrew word HRN is not the correct way to spell conception. It is spelled correctly as HRJWN in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11 when it meant conception. But this spelling in Genesis 3:16 is two letters short and is regarded by the lexical authorities such as Brown, Driver and Briggs as a contraction or even an error.
All Hebrew authorities acknowledge that not only are some consonantal letters missing for the meaning of conception, but the vowels are also unusual. The early Greek translation (made in the third or second century before Christ) read instead HGN, meaning “sighing.” The resultant meaning for this clause would be, “A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.”
…Furthermore, it must be remembered that this statement, no matter how we shall finally interpret it, is from a curse passage. In no case should it be made normative. And if the Evil One and not God is the source of the sorrow and sighing, then it is all the more necessary for us to refuse to place any degree of normativity to such statements and describe either the ordeal of giving birth to a child, or the challenge of raising that child, as an evil originating in God. God is never the source of evil: he would rather bless women. Instead, it is Satan who has set this trap.
The next clause strengthens the one we have been discussing by adding, “in sorrow (or pain) you will bring forth children.” Once again note that bearing children in itself was a blessing described in the so-called orders of creation of Genesis 1:28. The grief lies not so much in the conception or in the act of childbirth itself, but in the whole process of bringing children into the world and raising them up to be whole persons before God. (Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament, 31-32)
The second part of Gen 3:16 says: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Did God cause marital relationship problems or is the writer of Genesis warning relational problems are a natural consequence of spiritual death? The context suggests God is warning of potential relationship problems in a world where sin exists. God is not mandating relationship roles, as often this passage is interpreted to suggest God appointed husband leader over his wife. God is describing problems not prescribing roles as a result of man’s choice to alienate himself from God. God did not cause or command woman to desire man more than Himself and man to rule. The Hebrew suggests “Your are turning away (from God!) to your husband, and (as a result) he will rule over you (take advantage of you)[Kaiser, 35]. God does not cause women to look to men for their support and thus man to take advantage of this overindulgence. We do these things perfectly fine on our own. God has warned what would happen in parenting and marriage relationships when spiritual death happened, when we follow our own ways than the Creator’s. Spiritual death set in motion all sorts of relational problems rather than blessings that naturally follow when living righteously.
Did God cause environment consequences as a result of sin? Genesis 3:17-19 says: “To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ ‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.’” We can interpret this passage as describing what will result in nature as man chooses to live on his own out under the authority of God, which is similar to the warning about relationships in verse 16. God doesn’t actually curse lands all over the world. When land is neglected it will quickly be taken over by weeds. Man’s rebellion will affect physical nature as well as human nature. Instead of caring for the land, we exploit and destroy nature by pollution of air and water and other acts of destruction to the soil and vegetation. We underestimate freedom gone array both on human as well as physical nature.
Though I would have no problem if God determined natural disasters were an appropriate consequence for our rebellion against the Creator of the natural world, this is not what the author necessarily had in mind. Spiritual death, as a result of our freedom to oppose God, seem to lead to all sorts of calamity including physical death, relationship problems, and environmental evils. There are many passages that talk about God being able to control natural forces and bring them down to bare on us if necessary. (De. 28:58-63, Jer. 10:17-25, Jonah 1 when God caused a violent storm to follow Jonah as He was fleeing God) Many passages speak of God’s ability to control but not necessarily that He is always causing such variables. Rebellion against God set in motion the deterioration of the earth, which leads to all kinds of natural disasters. For example, genetic defects surely formed over the generations, leading to birth abnormalities. Is God behind and to be blamed for all birth defects? When humans rebelled, all hell broke loose, both environmentally and personally.
We can believe God cannot create life in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle and yet there be free will. If certain problems are more of a natural consequence of sin than caused by God, we can assume there cannot be freedom without them. It has been suggested God could simply build anti-human elements into nature to protect the innocent from natural evil. God could manufacture events so only people who deserved to be affected were. If this is true, God could have done the same for moral evil. If God could have done so and preserved freedom, He would have done so. If suffering weren’t absolutely necessary, God would not allow it. God is not some sadist! Sometimes, people experience more than their share of evil, sometimes less. The fact that God gave up control for the sake of freedom does not mean that He does not grieve, that He does not respond to evil, or that He does not suffer as well, as we shall see below.
Even if we understand God did cause certain consequences as a result of rebellion, shouldn’t we give God the benefit of the doubt? Besides, death can be a blessing, since pain and suffering doesn’t exist in heaven. Perhaps this is why the first couple was banished from the Garden (Gen 3:23), for in Eden one would live forever. Regardless of whether we determine death was a natural consequence or a logical consequence imposed by God, are we in any position to judge God? Certainly, we can ask questions to better understand God, but cannot we trust God to best balance freedom and evil? Do others know more than God how to respond when people choose self-centered ways? Parents know that when a teenage child chooses to do something wrong, no response is only to encourage the same selfish behavior. No response results in personal ruin and the destruction of others they come across. If there are no absolutes in this world there is chaos. One must decide if they are more capable than the Creator to determine if and what consequences are appropriate. Personally, I have never met one more righteous than God to take His place. Character does matter! I challenge anyone to open the book to their life, the thoughts not seen by others, the actions no one knows about, and prove they live according to their own value system. Who is more just than the Creator?
Some may argue if God knew all the evil that would result from creation, He should not have created man and woman, or at least man. We parents should talk! God knew humans would be free to sin, but He did not predetermine or know what choice they would make. Even if God knew the future, should He just squash freedom? Human parents know the inevitable that their children will suffer to some degree and die, but they still have children. But, it seems to me God knows what actions He will take in the future, but our actions have yet to happen, thus there is genuine freedom. We must not insist God know something that cannot be known. I will discuss this further in the chapter on God and the future. Open theism, also called Free Will Theism, comes the closest to an alternate understanding of the traditional view of God’s nature. As mentioned before Dr. John Sanders suggests a different biblical viewpoint to the traditional understand of God:
God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give and take relationships with us...God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship, yet he is endlessly resourceful and competent in working toward his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. On other occasions, God works with human decisions, adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being. (The Openness of God)
How God Does Not React To Evil
God does not prevent freedom, which often leads to evil, because freedom is necessary for genuine intimacy to exist. We must realize from God’s perspective that three deaths are not better than four deaths, just two women raped is not better than three raped, and just one child abused is not better than two children abused. Any selfish act is one to many from a divine perspective. God’s standards far exceed human standards, so we all are guilty of evil to some degree. If God rid of everyone who has ever caused pain by an act of selfishness, no one would be left. All evil is not the same, but if God was to stop evil before it happens and to be true to character, He would have to stop any wrongdoing. God’s total interference would make a mockery out of freedom. Besides, God stopping evil for only some people would lead to accusations that God doesn’t care enough or chooses favorites. Hypocritically, we ask God to interfere with those who sin against us, but then we ask for mercy when we sin. Where there is freedom there is a will. Where this is a will apparently there will always be evil. Apparently, the only way for God to completely control evil and its effects in a free world is to not create human beings at all.
God does not impose His will on us. Some may think if God would just stay on top of us 24/7, that we would respond and become the kind of people we long for deep in our souls. Does imposing our will or demanding respect from our spouse brings about desired reconciliation? Sometimes, a partner is most influenced when one backs off and “walks the talk.” Parents understand imposing their will on their older children does not bring about the changes desired. The more we force our way, the more resistance we receive. We might achieve compliance in the short-run, but often at the expense of a long-term, genuine relationship. Parents often must back off, while continuing to show unconditional love, in order to achieve the results desired. Children and adults must be allowed to fail often in order to succeed. We surely do not think we are wiser and less selfish with our children than God with His children. Individually, we may wish to be at peace with our enemies. If there is ever a chance we can achieve such a goal, this is not achieved by imposing our will. Often, the only way to change hatred or rebellion is not to respond in like manner, to not take revenge, to always be prepared to forgive if forgiveness is sought. This is what God does for us.
God does not overwhelm us with His power. Some may argue if God would just overwhelm us with His presence, we would not want to commit evil acts. We live in denial if we think God’s visibility and miracles stop evil. The Israelites, despite God’s visible presence at times and direct interventions, kept going back to their selfish ways. God parted the Red Sea; God fed them manna from the Heavens; God provided water from a rock. We would be no different. How many times have we been spared of certain hardships or been on the end of miraculous interventions, only to go back to previous attitudes or actions to some degree. Jesus did heart-stopping miracles but most still responded with skepticism. Changing a person’s heart apparently requires more than displays of power or miracles. Miracles turn heads, but they don’t always turn hearts against evil.
God does not destroy or annihilate people at the first sign of opposition or before evil gets out of hand. Thank God this is not how He treats His children. At the first sign of evil are we going to destroy our children? Aren’t we going to think how we can influence and win them back without denying them the freedom to choose, so we can experience true intimacy? God values freedom and by nature is forgiving and merciful to allow for change. Frankly, if God destroyed us at the first sign of evil or disobedience according to His standards, none of us would have made it out of childhood. Hypocritically, we ask God to interfere, but humans don’t interfere because it is “none of our business.” God doesn’t always destroy people even when there is continuously, severe opposition. Evil got so bad in Noah’s lifetime God took drastic action but future generations after Noah’s proved beginning anew does not destroy evil permanently. God seems to have an unchangeable purpose through History to save as many of His children as possible, even if they turn their backs on Him at first, no matter how bad it gets. God is extremely patient, merciful, forgiving, and perseverant, though we may not deserve such behaviors. God is always seeking to “break through” to human beings to restore what has been lost.
We know why God allows evil. Freedom! We know why God risked creating us. Intimacy! We know why God doesn’t instantly destroy at the first sign of evil? His Character! God treats those who oppose Him differently than humans. God’s standards are higher than our standards but so is His tolerance thankfully. We might argue God should intervene when the evil gets intolerable from a human perspective. God is patient. We have free will to do what we want now, but there is a day of accountability. God has drawn a line in the sand! God gives us hope after death of a place where evil will not be tolerated. The Bible even talks about degrees of punishment. (Lk. 12:46-48; Mt.11:23-24; 23:14) God does not prevent freedom. God does not impose His will. God does not instantly annihilate when opposed. God didn’t create the mess we have made for ourselves, some more than others, but He has not abandoned us. God promises His peace in the midst of distress, disease, destruction, and even death.
How Does God Interfere With Evil?
God already has taken steps from the very beginning to prevent as much evil as possible by warning and guiding us. From the beginning of sin, God warned us where our ways can lead. Satan’s ways, the father of evil, are the opposite of God’s ways, the Father of righteousness. Genesis 3:16 is in the context of curses or consequences as a result of succumbing to Satan’s temptation of sin, thus God seems to be describing potential consequences than prescribing rules for relationships. “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” God intervene by warning men of their inclination to rule over the women. A common denominator in bad relationships is men who seek to rule than serve. Women often seem to get in trouble when looking to fallible man for security rather than the infallible God. Obviously, many marriages could be saved if only individuals would take to heart what God has spoken to us through the written Word. God has spoken but we just don’t listen.
When nations, even those who had seen miracles from the Creator, sought other gods, God did not abandon them and wash His hands of them. The Ten Commandments were prescribed out of love for guidance. They are not just a bunch of do’s and don’ts. Can you imagine individuals and nations who abided by these laws in their actions toward one another? God first commandment to Moses to give his people says: “You shall have no other gods before me.” God was not being self-centered. God would be less than honest if He pretended others gods existed, when they don’t really exist. Parents of young children tell their children “you must do as I say” because they love them more than any other parent and have their best interest in mind. This is selfless behavior, not selfish behavior. Do not be fooled by “lesser evils.” Evil has a beginning. Stealing at the office cannot lead to any good. Neglecting your marriage and treating your partner different than you want to be treated is the path to disharmony and all kinds of acts of selfishness and evils such as abuse and adultery. God’s ways are always in our best interest. How much evil prevails depends upon how much opposition there is to God’s ways.
II Chronicles 7:14 is frequently referred to as how a nation can protect themselves from evil. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” This passage is not a prayer for protection against evil from others; it is a prayer for protection from ourselves. Nations by changing their own evil ways can have forgiveness and hope for necessary change. Evil is deterred when people look inwardly and toward God. In Jesus’ suggestion when praying to our Heavenly father, prayer against evil is again personal. “And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Mt. 6: 13-15) One doesn’t read a lot of prayers in the Bible that read “God, take this problem from me,” but rather “God, help me preserve, help me stand up against evil.” The Scriptures speak not of God as a genie in a bottle but as a Presence in the midst of tribulations. God prevents evil when individuals and nations repent from evil themselves.
It would seem God does not often directly interfere with the freedom of individuals to commit evil. The above passages suggest a theme throughout Scriptures, that God prevents evil when individual hearts change, so they might better stand individually and collectively against evil. Families must take a stand against abusers and not enable in any fashion. Nations must take a stand against other nations that violate human rights. When we are not evil ourselves, we are better able and more likely to be sensitive against the evil of others. We demand God interfere but we condemn a President who has taken a stand against an evil dictator who tortures at will. We demand evidence for nuclear weapons to justify intervention through war, yet ignore basic human rights abuse all around the world. God can rise up against evil by empowering those who have the courage to do something. God seemingly has chosen not to impose His will upon us at this time because of freedom. Evil will not prevail in the long run but God has not abandoned us. In a free world, God responds to evil one “heart” and possible one nation at a time. God has acted; it is we who have not responded.
I am not saying God never prevents evil directly. If we think though God does prevent some evil against us, we should be grateful but not presumptuous. Job was a great man of faith. Many others suffer tragedies surely not deserved. On September 11th do you really think some escaped the building because God cared for some and not others? God is not some sadist who plans tragedies to serve some grand purpose. We must watch our language! Some might say by the grace of God I was spared. This may be comforting for some, but this is not very comforting for those in similar situations who were not spared some tragedy. Evil is not some grand scheme by God! God doesn’t create evil, but God has ultimately responded to evil, as we will discuss below. Evil happens because of freedom. Freedom is complicated. Can you guarantee your behavior? Can you guarantee your children’s behavior and their children’s? The presence of evil does not indicate God does not care or He has abandoned us. Apparently, God is different than anyone we have met. God will go to extraordinary means to turn others from evil and He has invited those willing to participate in His mission.
God’s Ultimate Response To Evil
God has done something about evil, but I am afraid we may not like His answer. Evil was not a part of God’s preordained plan. God did not cause a rebellion against Himself! God created a perfect world without sin. God created us for mutual intimacy, which is every parent’s desire. God’s people chose to sin. As a result of freedom, human nature is what it is and the earth has certain problems as a result of our management. Humans may keep destroying and starting over. God is far to patience and forgiving to act like this. God desires that not one perish. Job pleaded to God “Put yourself in my place.” God responded “No, put yourself in my place.” God has not abandoned us. God set out to win back His people.
God developed a plan when evil presented itself. Genesis 3:15 says: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Most understand this passage to explain God’s response to evil. God will respond through Eve’s offspring, which cam to be understood with further revelation, to be God’s Son Jesus. It seems apparent in all of Scripture God had an unchangeable purpose to accomplish His mission to win His creations back, to turns their hearts from evil. God desperately desires the original relationship He intended with us. Who does not desire a world without sin or selfishness?
There can be no doubt that this passage was intended as a pivotal interpretation on the first human crisis …it was plain from the subsequent history of revelation to Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants that a representative child continued to be both God’s visible guarantee for the present and pledge for the future…the NT writers named this single plan or development the “promise” (epangelia). About forty passages may be cited from almost every part of the NT which contain this word “promise” as the quintessence of the OT teaching. Moreover, there is only one promise: it is a single plan. Paul, in the dock, affirmed: And now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God to our fathers; unto which our twelve tribe nation…hopes to attain. (Acts 26:6-7)[Kaiser, Toward An Old Testament Theology, 35, 37, 264]
God’s ultimate promise was fulfilled through the birth, life, suffering, and resurrection of His son, the Messiah. God’s single purpose always has been to save the world from itself, to restore our relationship with Him. Many miraculous interventions through the Old Testament and in the lives of the prophets were done to bring to fulfillment God’s plan and promise. The prophets’ miracles proved they were from God. Miracles by Jesus proved He was God’s promised fulfilled. John 20:30-31 says:
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (See also Jn. 2:11; 3:2; 5:36; 10:25,38; 14:11)
God’s ultimate response to evil is the slow, necessary way of the Incarnation. In an attempt to change the world and turn as many people as possible from evil, God sacrificed His Son. One cannot accuse God of preventing evil against Himself. Jesus was innocent of the crime He was crucified for. He was the Son of God proven by His resurrection. Pinnock and Brow in Chapter 9 in Unbounded Love point out several important truths about God’s sacrifice of His Son. The cross reveals a God who proves Himself though love than power. Love is even more persuasive when it involves sacrifice. The Incarnation was an active and personal response. God by suffering as a human though Christ gained moral authority and credibility with humans in overcoming evil He did not create. God has always been the seeking Parent, always wanting what is best for His children. Jesus died not to change God’s attitude but our attitude toward God. It is love we confront at the Cross, not His wrath against us. How does God get sinners to repent and follow love when free to choose - God chose the Incarnation. This is God’s ultimate response to evil. This is how God and evil coexist. We can be a part of God’s plan if we so choose. God lead the way with his Son as a role model for us to follow.
Conclusion
God cannot prevent evil if He is to allow freedom, unless He doesn’t create at all. God cannot rig a world where evil only affects the evildoer and it still be a free world. The truth of the matter is none of us want God to stop evil at its “first hint.” Most of us can barely go a day and treat others the way God does, much less abide by our own internal standards. So in reality we are asking God to overlook “small” evils, and just prevent the “major evils.” When we fail big though, we seek God’s forgiveness not His justice. We demand instant justice only of others. The Flood proves wiping out evil does not cause evil to go away. God stopping evil every time it raises its’ ugly head is not a solution because it just grows back. God has decided to stop destroying and get to the “heart” of the matter. God did not run from suffering as a result of evil, He participated through His Son. Eventually, God does deal with evil by those who do not respond. People die. People meet their Creator.
We demand God stop evil but often we do nothing ourselves to prevent evil. On way God attempts to combat evil is to persuade us to stand against evil in our own lives and the lives of others. Evil can be prevented or stopped, but often not enough stand up. Half of the voting population questions a President who stopped a dictator from torturing his people. There are other evils in other lands but we look the other way, often because of our own moral deficiencies. We as a nation choose the path of convenience on foreign soil and on our own land. We debate when to call a fetus human. Many fail to examine exactly when life begins, yet they advocate aborting at will. A beating heart can be detected at 18 days, long before most abortions take place. If we aren’t positive the so-called “fetus” feels no pain, isn’t to even consider abortion evil? If we don’t know for sure, to be humane, shouldn’t abortion be outlawed? We concern ourselves with so-called practical matters, rather than if abortion is the taking of an innocent, human life. Many call that murder.
God delays His response to evil out of love. We have to decide if we are going to be participants with God in changing the world, or go kicking and screaming all the way to heaven. God desires our participation in conquering evil. God does not abandon His children or cast away immediately those who oppose His ways. If we are willing, God can respond to evil by impacting others through how we respond to evil as He did with Jesus. Romans 8:28 says: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Just because God promises to bring good out of evil does not mean He orchestrated evil. Jesus’ persecution teaches us the greatest impact against evil where the most good can be accomplished is not through power but suffering. “You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia.” (I Thes.1:6-7)
Personal evil is easier to explain or perhaps accept in a world where freedom exists. It is not as easy to accept natural evils such as diseases, deformed infants, or floods and earthquakes, which we will discuss more in detail on the chapter on suffering. Ultimately, the topic of evil and God is about trust. Hopefully, this chapter has removed some stumbling blocks about preconceived notions about God and evil so you might for easily put your complete faith in God. God is fair. God is just more forgiving and tolerant of evil than we are on purpose. People don’t get away with evil. Justice delayed is not justice denied. All of us will eventually meet our Maker.
God’s delayed response to evil may have an additional benefit. The following is pure speculation. Revelation 21:4 says: “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Obviously, God will not tolerate evil in Heaven. Yet, I have always wondered if there will be free will in heaven because it is such a huge priority of God’s. If there is free will in heaven, life on earth could be a necessary preparation for heaven where evil will not be tolerated. We may need to experience evil and related problems to appreciate heaven and achieve perfection and the ability to not succumb to temptation. Life here on earth may be a necessary experience in preparation for citizenship in heaven. I am a better person due to adversity. I am not holy enough to not prefer the painless road toward perfection, even though intuitively I know it does not exit. God may delay His response to evil not only because of His respect for freedom but also perhaps for His love for me. God doesn’t cause evil but God can bring good out of evil.
I have come to believe without a doubt if anyone can rightly balance freedom and evil, God can. I would give no consideration to how not interfering destroys freedom or how sometimes greater good might be accomplished by not interfering. I would crush my enemies. God allows the possibility of repentance and restoration. Thankfully, God did not destroy me the first time I opposed Him. If I force my children to love me, this is neither a genuine relationship nor the relationship I desire. I will take the risk of a greater love by allowing them the freedom to choose, thus possibly harming others. My only other choice is to not to be a father at all.
Chapter 4
God And Suffering
Does God Cause Suffering And Why Doesn’t He Stop It?
Does God cause or create suffering in our lives in order that He might teach us something? Why doesn’t God prevent suffering or at least heal more often those suffering with emotional or physical ailments? How we answer these questions can determine the type of relationship we have with our Creator. Even if we understand why we are suffering, this does not necessarily make the experience any easier. At least though having some answers to the above questions can help us in a crisis to depend on rather than blame God. If one must suffer, can we at least hope some purpose is served, that one day there will be no suffering? I have plenty of experience with sufferings caused by my reaping what I sow. I could write an entire book on this matter. I am not as comfortable writing on non self-induced sufferings because I cannot write from much experience. I have never gone without food. I was not sexually abused as a child. I have never suffered a drastic injury where I have permanent, physical disablement. The emotional pains I have felt are miniscule in comparison to others. But, if one is going to write a book about God’s nature, they must talk about how God and suffering coexist together.
Suffering
Suffering seems to fall into three categories - self-inflicted, inflicted by others, and sufferings resulting from natural as opposed to personal evil. Certain sufferings need no explanation. Most understand we bring many sufferings on ourselves as a result of our own actions. God created in the beginning a perfect world where selfishness did not exist. Rational people understand consequences are deserved when we don’t treat one another like we want to be treated. If we commit adultery, we should expect “all hell to break loose.” Any other attitude is arrogance. We may lose the love and respect of our wife, children, and community. If we fail on the job as parents, don’t expect your children to visit when they are older. If we do not lead by example in the work place, do not expect your employees to follow. Obviously, in a free world self-inflicted suffering as well impacts those we have a relationship with or come in contact with.
Much of suffering is inflicted on others by evildoers, directly or indirectly, thus a by-product of freedom. C.S. Lewis suggested that wars, crimes, and injustices - evils that come about through bad choices made by cruel and lawless people - account for at least 80 percent of mankind's suffering. Much of suffering is the result of others’ selfishness than selflessness, whether it be emotional pain or physical death as a result of a terrorist attack, whether it be emotional or physical scars from a parent abusing a child, whether it be a parent losing a child in a car accident because one was drinking and driving. These sufferings are not any easier to cope with necessarily but it can be easier to explain how God cannot be blamed for these matters. One may think God could easily manufacture events so that only people who deserve to suffer are affected and somehow shield everyone else from the consequences of free, evil decisions made by others. God doesn’t even do this for Himself through his Son. I have suggested in the chapter on evil that it is not logically possible to have a free world and not the possibility of moral evil, which leads to much suffering. Genuine freedom necessitates the possibility of suffering inflicted on others by evildoers.
Suffering Not Directly Caused By Personal Evil
Self-inflicted suffering and suffering inflicted by others is easier to explain since God’s allows freedom. A third type of suffering I spoke about in the chapter on evil, which often is a greater stumbling block for many, is suffering resulting from natural as opposed to personal evil. Many sufferings come about through natural disasters such as floods, diseases, and earthquakes, which are not often easily traced to environmental mismanagement. Children are born with physical deformities that cannot be traced directly to wrongful actions of parents. An infant born with birth defects can experience much suffering in their life. We want to avoid the trap of Job’s friends and those during Jesus’ life. We must not assume or suggest all sufferings can be traced to personal sin. In John 9:1-3 Jesus advised his audience as Job did his friends. “As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’” People during Jesus’ lifetime made the same assumptions that Job’s friends in the Old Testament made.
People commonly assumed that disease and disorders on both the personal and national level were due to sin, as summarized in the rabbinic saying from around A.D. 300 that "there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity" (b. shabbat 55a). But the case of a person born blind raises the question of whose sin caused this condition, that of his parents or of the person himself while in the womb. The idea that the parents' sins can affect their children finds support in the Old Testament itself (Ex 20:5), as does its antithesis (Ezek 18:20). Likewise the rabbis debated whether fetuses could sin, some arguing they could (for example, Genesis Rabbah 63:6) and others that they could not (Genesis Rabbah 34:10). Obviously, such issues were matters of debate within Judaism (cf. Schrage 1972:290-91), including the time during Jesus' ministry, as our text indicates. (Rodney A Whitacre, Series Editor Grant Osborne, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, V.4)
Jesus was responding to the disciples’ specific question regarding whose sin caused the man’s blindness. The disciples assumed someone was to blame. Jesus clearly stated that this man’s blindness was not punishment by God for the actions of the parents or individual. Jesus also states even in tragedy God can bring about good (“but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”) We should not conclude from this passage God causes this man’s blindness to just give God the opportunity to do some great work. Sometimes, we are blindsided by cancer or other physical tragedies. The Bible does not defend God is the originator of suffering or that all of suffering is some elaborate scheme by God so He can do good works.
In the Old Testament God clearly sometimes does cause natural disasters such as the Flood, famines, or plagues for a purpose. No biblical passages clearly state that God causes all diseases or tragedies. This is an assumption made, often based on one’s understanding of God’s sovereignty. Many passages speak of God’s ability to control nature’s elements (i.e. Flood in Genesis 6-8, plagues in Exodus 7-12; famine in II Samuel 21; Deut. 28: 58-63; see Jer. 10:17-25, Jonah 1). Many sufferings referred to in the Old Testament are God’s discipline for godless behavior (Deut. 32; Jer. 30). God’s punishments often were designed to bring people back to Him. Jeremiah 18:7-10 says:
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’
Even God though acknowledges innocent suffer from punishment inflicted upon the guilty. “This is what the LORD says: ‘If those who do not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, why should you go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, but must drink it.’” (Jer. 49:12) The innocent suffering is often a byproduct of a fallen world. Children often suffer because of the punishment of their parents.
One should not assume all natural disasters, including health matters, are the result of God’s punishment to others. So much suffering is not a direct result of one’s actions. Does God cause a house to burn down through an electrical storm for some grand purpose? Does God cause car accidents for some grand purpose? Does God cause certain women to contact breast cancer for some grand purpose? A far better explanation is that these types of sufferings are the result of a fallen world, not some grand orchestration by God. Suffering often is at the hands of evil or selfish dictators or leaders who act in their own interests and not in the interests of those they lead. Suffering often though comes in the form of physical illness or natural disaster, which are no fault of our own. God does not plan or cause these sufferings. Many sufferings are not related to actions of our own but are the result of living in a free world. One can assume God cannot create life in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle and yet there be free will. Otherwise, he would have done so.
I do not wish to argue God might not ever cause some individuals to suffer, such as Paul’s thorn in the flesh. “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” (2 Cor.12:7) Either Satan was given permission or God caused suffering to Paul. But, there is no biblical justification to say God causes all sufferings. God may cause some sufferings such as Paul’s thorn, but God doesn’t cause people to sin that leads to a great deal of suffering we see in the world. Much of suffering is a by-product of a world given the freedom to rebel. Rebellion again God set in motion in the deterioration of both human and physical nature.
In our world today, millions of people are starving to death. I read once that if only enough good people acted together, we could prevent much of world hunger. We expect God to interfere with the freedom principle and stop the innocent and defenseless from suffering, yet many of us do nothing, as our bellies are full. God, like Jesus, could perform a miracle and feed millions today, but then eventually people and nations would just revert back to their old ways of not intervening. Human parents who do for their children what they must do for themselves, create dependency rather than necessary permanent change. Unfortunately, innocent bystanders suffer in such a free world. Like Job, we must come to appreciate the complications in running a free world. Personally, I have more confidence in God running a free universe, rather than humans.
I hope the following example is not considered too silly or minor. It is not inconsequential in the eyes of the suffering. Many young people struggle with acne and the emotional scars this can cause through the ridicule by others. Acne can cause not only pain in the present but for years to come. If we wish to suggest God is in control and causes all sufferings, then we would have to believe God chooses some teenagers to have acne and not others. Young people with acne would need to be advised God has a purpose for their medical situation and He has chosen them for a particular reason. Instead, I have suggested we should argue that many tragedies, whether physical or emotional, are the result of either individual or natural consequences due to freedom going array. God will suffer with us and give us the strength to deal with the emotional or physical pain involved.
God’s Role In Suffering
Does God cause or is He “behind” suffering? Paul says in Romans 8:18: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” He goes on to say: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (8:28 in the TNIV translation) The NLT translation reads: “And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.” (A NLT footnote acknowledges a different, possible translation “And we know that everything works together.”) Few translations though give the impression through the English language that God is the causal agent of all circumstances in our life, including suffering. This passage’s context does not support that God causes suffering to accomplish good. Paul and Christians were suffering because of the God given freedom of others to reject the Gospel or to even torture those who believed in Christ. Despite Israel’s widespread unbelief and disobedience, God somehow will keep His promise to bless all nations through Israel. Paul is wishing to strengthen those of faith in suffering by advising God is on their side. Those who seek God can claim the promise that even in suffering and tragedy God can bring good (8:28). People can oppose God’s ways, but God will fulfill His Promise.
We must be careful to not read into the biblical translation our English meaning that God is the causal agent of all circumstances in our life, including suffering. The book of Romans does not say God caused the disobedience of His chosen people, the Jewish nation, so His good purpose may be accomplished. God will accomplish His purpose, the election unto salvation through Christ for all who seek Him, in spite of the Israelites’ rebellion. Genesis 50:20 in reference to Joseph speaking to his brothers says: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” God did not cause Joseph brothers’ hearts to turn against their younger brother. God used the evil and suffering in the situation to accomplish a greater good. A parent of a child killed by drunk driver can show Christlike love to the guilty when remorseful. During times of terrorism nations can choose to not take revenge on the guilty but rather seek justice. A teenager who loses their parent to cancer can choose to rest in God’s hope for eternal life and reach out to others in similar circumstances. God doesn’t cause suffering that good may come from it. God uses suffering already present to accomplish something good if we allow Him.
God created a perfect world and had no intentions of anyone suffering. Suffering was not God’s original intention or design. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) I suggest in the chapter on evil that spiritual death, as a result of opposing God, led to all sorts of calamity including physical death and natural evils which causes much suffering. Rebellion against God set in motion the deterioration of human and physical nature. For instance, genetic defects surely formed over the generations, leading to birth abnormalities. When we rebelled, all hell broke loose, both environmentally and personally. This apparently was a natural consequence to freedom. All suffering came into play and chaos resulted when God’s ways were opposed. God permits human nature and physical nature to run it course, but this does not mean God caused personal or natural evil. Obviously, suffering resulting from personal, evil choices in a free world is easier to explain than suffering not the direct result of an individual’s evil choice.
Even if we argue that curses spoken of in Genesis are a logical consequence caused by God, rather than a natural consequence because of exerting our will, wrongdoing requires some kind of action from a Parent. We often underestimate our utter contempt for God and necessary consequences to draw us back to Him for our own good. For instance, where would our world be without consequences for our sexual behaviors? Unfortunately, in a free world, the innocent are impacted as well. A spouse may contract a transmitted sexual disease through her marriage partner, due to her partner’s past behavior or current unfaithfulness. But, if there were no sexual diseases, how many more women would be treated as “sex objects.” A responsible parent cannot simply ignore a child’s self-centered behavior. To simply ignore our child’s immoral behavior is not only a tell sign of our character but it also makes us an accessory to the crime. Rebellion requires some kind of response. No response is a response. We must accept that God’s response to Adam and Eve was just. Nothing about God’s character, other than preconceived notions, can be brought against God proving Him unjust. His ultimate act of love, the sacrifice of His Son as a role model for us to follow, is proof enough it would seem.
We can believe God cannot create life in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle and yet there be free will. It has been suggested God could simply build anti-human elements into nature to protect the innocent from suffering from natural disasters. God could manufacture events so only people who deserved to be affected were. If this is true, God could have done the same for moral evil. If God could have done so and preserved freedom, He would have done so. If suffering weren’t absolutely necessary to preserve freedom, God would not allow it. Suffering was not God’s original intentions or design. God is not yanking chains, picking and choosing who is suffering and who isn’t. God is not some sadist! Sometimes, we experience more than our share of suffering, sometimes less. The fact that God gave up control for the sake of freedom does not mean that He does not grieve, that He does not respond to suffering, or that He does not suffer as well.
The Explanation God “Allows” Suffering
Some argue God preordains all things. This necessarily includes evils and sufferings. Some are uncomfortable with any explanation of God’s sovereignty that does not make Him the causal agent or the reason that all things happen. This view of sovereignty suggests humans are still responsible for all decisions they make because all would choose to do wrong anyway without God’s influence. It may be argued those who suffer because of some grand scheme by God, instead of suffering being a by-product resulting from free will, are not totally innocent. It is true no one is perfect but the Bible does not suggest God as the originator of all evil and suffering. God did not cause men to torture Jesus. God used their evil and spiritual blindness to accomplish His mission. Any suggestion that God causes evil and suffering doesn’t do justice to God’s true nature and cannot be defended fully from a biblical standpoint. God doesn’t have to go out of His way to cause suffering to teach us. We humans do just fine on our own inflicting pain on others and ourselves. But God will work to bring some good from our suffering if we depend on Him.
Many seem to think or believe that for God to be sovereign He must “control” or be controlling. Actually, only an infinite God does not have to control and still be in control. Only humans must have total control to be in control. Let’s don’t define God’s nature and His sovereignty in such a way that we assume or give others the impression God is responsible for evil and suffering brought about by the consequences of human freedom. It is important to understand that God does not cause death or other evils so somehow His will or plan can be worked out. God’s plan was never for freedom to be self-centered and thus negatively affect others. Yes, things happen that are not God’s will. God gave His children a right to oppose His ways, but God did not abandon us. God also doesn’t instantly squash the disobedient; instead, He set up an elaborate plan to persuade others toward His viewpoint by allowing His innocent Son to be crucified. God can work with us to change the world if only we are willing. We know through biblical revelation that death, the ultimate tragedy, is only a temporary intruder in a once-perfect world.
Some are uncomfortable saying God causes suffering so they use terminology such as “God’s allows suffering” to maintain their personal understanding of God’s sovereignty. We must be careful what we are conveying to others regarding God’s nature and actions. If we mean God allows suffering because He created humans with freedom then so be it. To be consistent we must also say a human parent allows suffering because they give birth and allows freedom to their children. Even human parents know, before their child is born, that at some time in their child’s life they will experience suffering to some degree. When we say God allows suffering, I do not think we should think of God causing some to suffer and not others. Does God really cause or select which children will be abused and not others? God doesn’t wish for any child to be sexually or physically abuse. God is opposed to any abuse. Individuals need not waste their energy getting mad at God. He is on their side if they want His help. God does intervene it seems mostly though “changed hearts” who are moral or courageous enough to interfere.
I understand it may bring psychological comfort to some to say God controls everything to the exact detail, but the logical conclusion of this viewpoint is problematic. Do we want to say God determines ahead of time whether one is born into an abusive versus loving family? Do we want to say God controls all physical disasters as if He had some grand scheme? Does God cause an island in Costa Rica to be wiped out where thousands die? Does God cause an earthquake to happen in India rather than the United States for specific reasons? Certainly, in the Old Testament God did bring on physical disasters as a consequence for evil behavior. It is not stated nor should we assume all physical disasters are the result of sin. Disasters are a product of a fallen world, sometimes possibly traced to environmental mismanagement or personal or corporate evil, but not always. Natural disasters, just as personal disasters, often result because of the freedom principle. We blame God when He doesn’t interfere, but we despise a God who doesn’t allow freedom. We should be careful tracing all disasters to “God allows them and not others” as if He caused them.
Paul’s Response To Suffering
Paul is certainly entitled to advise us on undeserved suffering. Paul was beaten and imprisoned for verbally sharing the gospel. Paul challenged but did not demand others accept his beliefs as some other religions might. He had the audacity to claim that Jesus was the Son of God. Who could blame him? Thousands witnessed miracles of Jesus. Several hundred witnesses saw Jesus alive after His crucifixion, after He claimed He would rise from the dead. Jesus tomb was empty without any adequate explanation. Paul was thus punished for telling the truth it appears. One may not agree that the claims of Jesus are a reliable historical fact, but since when do we beat and imprison others simply for proclaiming something we do not agree with. Paul has a right to speak on unjustified suffering.
Paul expected to suffer. Paul did not blame God for his suffering. Paul spoke often of the positive benefits of suffering, both in character and future rewards. Paul says in Romans 5:3-5: “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who he has been given to us.” Paul says in Romans 8:18: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” We can become more like Jesus during times of suffering. Peter agreed wholeheartedly with Paul on the purpose of suffering when we suffer no fault of our own:
For it is commendable if you bear up under the pain of unjust suffering because you are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. (I Pe. 2:19-21)
Suffering caused by natural evil can be compared to Paul’s suffering for the cause of Christ; Paul and believers he spoke to did not deserve the suffering they incurred. Children who have cancer or experience some other tragedy is not due to their actions but because they live in a fallen, diseased world. The world is not necessarily fair. God is not in heaven scheming and plotting to make sure everyone gets their share of suffering. God doesn’t will millions of children in other countries be born into poverty and disease. Paul didn’t promise that God would take away suffering instantly; instead, Paul provided hope. Suffering individuals can have internal peace in the midst of chaos and have the hope of life after death where there will be no suffering. Suffering can serve a purpose. Our suffering can be compared to the sufferings of Jesus. Jesus suffered for a purpose. His suffering was meant to point others to God and the relationship they could have with Him. When we suffer, we can help others drawer nearer to God.
God’s Response To Suffering
Many can accept the explanation that there is suffering in the world as the result of free, evil choices made by others, whether self-inflicted or inflicted by others. God created freedom so that no one is forced to love Him. We want God to interfere but there cannot be genuine freedom if God is constantly interfering. If freedom were possible without the possibility of evil, God would have created such a world. Similarly, suffering not apparently directly caused from evil choices must exist in a free world. We begin to complain though why God doesn’t interfere to stop our suffering. As we discussed in the chapter on evil in God’s ultimate response to evil, God is on a mission. God’s unchangeable purpose through History is to save as many of His children as possible, even if they constantly turn their backs on Him. God is extremely patient, merciful, and forgiving, though we many not deserve such behaviors. God is always seeking to “break through” to human beings in order to restore what have been lost. God desires our participation in this mission, which is often through our sufferings rather than miracles.
One cannot accuse God of preventing evil or suffering against Himself. Jesus was innocent of the crime He was crucified for. Jesus’ resurrection proved He was the Son of God. If we are honest lives are more often changed through suffering than power. Jesus’ actions proved instantly healing and displays of power don’t always have lasting impact on the lives of others. I speculated in the conclusion of the chapter on evil that we may become more prepared for citizenship in heaven by suffering through the consequences of a free world rather than constantly being rescued.
The topic of suffering is often a stumbling block to others in the language we use. We often hear others say suffering is “God’s will.” God did not will or intend suffering in the beginning. Suffering happens because God created a world with freedom and He does not instantly destroy evil at first sight or stop suffering immediately, but this does not make God responsible for suffering. God created a perfect world and in return only ask of those He created that they treat one another the way they wish to be treated. We failed and continue to fail miserably. God does not will suffering if we mean that somehow God has some incomprehensible plan where He plans tragedies to serve some grand purpose. It is more correct to say God’s will in our suffering is that we follow Jesus’ example so others might be changed in a positive way. If there were a better way where suffering wasn’t necessary, God would have chosen this path. God gets no pleasure in seeing His children suffer. I as a parent have wished my children feel no pain, even if brought on by them, but this isn’t always the most loving action to take.
There is plenty of suffering that God doesn’t have to create some. When one loses a child, when one is involved in an accident, when one contacts some disease, they might say or think God willed it. Some might say by the grace of God I was spared. This might be comforting for some, but this is not very comforting for those in similar situations who were not spared some tragedy. God doesn’t often prevent pain and suffering that comes our way, but this doesn’t mean God willed it or made it happen. Instead, the Bible paints the picture of a God who grieves when we suffer even when we bring it on ourselves, who did not even spare Himself from suffering though innocent, who comes alongside and provides comfort, purpose in suffering, and the hope of life someday where suffering will not exist. God can use suffering to accomplish a greater good with our cooperation. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him who have been called according to his purpose.” (Rom. 8:28) Our suffering does not have to be in vain. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver can show Christlike love to the guilty if remorseful, a teenager who loses their parent to cancer can choose to rest in God’s hope for eternal life and reach out to others in similar circumstances. God promises rewards for those who do suffer though no fault of their own (i.e. Lk. 6:22-23).
Suffering can be much more understood if we don’t insist God be a control freak or run the universe how we might. The book of Job doesn’t suggest all suffering is a cosmic interplay between God and Satan. Instead, we learn suffering happens in a free world, and just like with moral evil, God doesn’t interfere with only a short-term perspective. If God was constantly interfering, then we would complain: “why doesn’t He spare me from all suffering.” For God to do so would mean there would be no real freedom. I believe God has answered many of our questions about suffering through the life of Job, Joseph, Jesus, the blind man, Paul, and countless others. God does not cause suffering, but God cares and will respond, though not in the way we wish He always would by instantly stopping the suffering or causing a miracle. Suffering can lead the one suffering and others to the Truth in ways miracles and other displays of power cannot. Suffering will not last for there is life after death where there will be no pain and suffering.
Conclusion
The Israelites give ample proof that miracles may only addict us to miracles, not to God. Instant healing doesn’t make us the kind of people we need to be nor change the attitude of others. The Israelites lived through and witnessed the ten plagues of Egypt, they had crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, they had drunk water from a rock, they digested the miracle of manna in their bellies – these same people by the time Moses descended from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, they were dancing like heathens around a golden calf. God’s directness seemed to produce the very opposite of the desired effect. Miracles never had much lasting impact on the Israelites’ faith. God wanted what any parent wants: a happy household of children who treated one another selflessly. We learn then as biblical history unfolds that what God could not win through power, he would attempt to win through suffering. Jesus knew well the shallow effect of miracles in Moses’ day, and in Elijah’s: they attracted crowds, yes, but rarely encouraged long-term faithfulness. The crowd focused only on their current problems in the physical world – poverty, illness, and political oppression. The Cross reveals a God who proves himself through love than power. Love can be more persuasive when it involves sacrifice.
Despite what some television evangelists suggest, one doesn’t read a lot of prayers in the Bible that read “God, take this problem from me,” but rather “God, help me persevere.” Someone once said God does not promise us a panacea, but He does promise us peace in the midst of life’s storms. The Bible speaks not of God as a genie in a bottle but a Presence in the midst of tribulations. The biblical writers, rather than emphasize the origin or rationale for suffering, tend to speak on what purpose suffering can serve if we seek rather than blame God. With God’s peace, we can stand firm in distress, disease, destruction, and even death. Because of freedom God’s hope is not a life without problems but His presence in this life and the hope of life one day where sin and evil don’t prevail. The reality is God does not prevent or stop suffering most of the time. God’s miraculous interventions do not appear to be the norm. Often, they accomplish very little. The truth of the matter is that witnessing others suffer with dignity may have a greater impact in one turning from evil (See I Thes. 1; I Pe. 4). Jesus’ persecution impacted billions, though He was only here on earth for a short time. How we might pray in times of suffering will be discussed more fully in the chapter on prayer.
Suffering we bring on ourselves by our own behavior can be a blessing though never an excuse for our behavior. We don’t have to fail to succeed, but we can learn from failings important lessons for unselfish living. The addict often doesn’t learn until hitting “rock bottom.” Thank God for His patience. One could argue there may be less evil because of God’s lack of interference. The alcoholic or wayward teenager sometimes changes only after hitting rock bottom. A parent cannot keep interfering and expect long-lasting change. I am constantly over-indulging my children, often preventing problems in the short run, because they are such great kids. This is not always in their best interest as they move toward adulthood. You don’t have to be a mental health professional to understand over-indulging rebellious teenagers only allows them to continue on the path of irresponsibility. You could say God is not an enabler. Do we want God just to throw away those who must hit bottom to be less self-centered? We may but God’s ways are not our ways.
Suffering, though not created by God, may be a necessary evil. Sometimes, only suffering can bring about necessary changes. God’s constant interference may not allow, real, long-lasting change. Suffering can be an opportunity to draw nearer to God out of necessity and drawer others nearer to God by our example. God has not abandoned us. God will use suffering to accomplish good if we allow Him, if we can only move to a place when we stop blaming God. God frequently doesn’t answer our request for healings. When I die I will have total physical healing as promised by God for those who desire to spent eternity with Him. I can work toward total spiritual healing now. It is not something I must wait on. The truth is that the road to perfection is through pain and not pleasure.
Suffering can be opportunities to impact others on things that matter most. People as a whole don’t often think on spiritual matters. Some don’t even think about God, much less pray to God, until in trouble. Many only respond when they witness others handling tragedies in a less than natural way. When I am in pain I am tempted to focus on my temporary and physical needs. My motive is to avoid pain at all cost. God’s motive is to do everything possible to love the selfish into unselfishness. I will still pray for a miracle, but I must allow God the right to interfere or not for whatever purpose. I understand God loves me dearly and feels my pain. I can only hope I get to a place where Jesus was in times of evil. Jesus facing death prayed: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Lk. 22:42) Jesus trusted God.
I am convinced the loudest celebrations will be for those who have suffered much in this life, due to no doings of their own. Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 is very clear that in His heart is a special place for those who suffer the most in this life.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted, Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth…Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Chapter 5
God And Prayer
Why Bother?
Why doesn’t God answer more of my prayers positively? Why doesn’t God speak to us more directly like He did in the Old Testament? Why aren’t there more miracles today like in the time of Jesus? How do you pray to an invisible God that you obviously cannot touch or see? What do we petition God for? Why even bother to pray since God already knows what you are thinking? Answers to these questions can impact the type of relationship with have with God. Many people turn away from God because of their genuine disappointments and misunderstandings regarding God and their prayers. When God does not respond in a certain way, they feel He doesn’t care about their situation. It is important to understand how God answers our prayers and how we ought to pray.
We must understand that God placed a higher priority on freedom than having control, or we will always be displeased with Him. God chose love over control, as genuine intimacy cannot be coerced. Freedom means God may not always intervene the way we wish. Things happen that are not God’s will, but that does not mean God has abandoned us. God by allowing freedom could not guarantee we would never suffer from the hands of others, directly or indirectly. God does not annihilate people at the first hint of evil. This is not a flaw on God’s character but a reflection of our character. God will ultimately bring order to chaos. He promises citizenship in heaven after death to those who desire that, where there will be no sin. Meanwhile, sin distorted the world and thankfully God made it His mission to win back the hearts of His people rather than just destroy and start over. We must decide whether to pray in hopes to manipulate God or to cooperate and ultimately trust God in running the universe where freedom is a priority.
If Only God Would Speak Directly And There Were More Miracles
God did speak to us directly frequently. Miracles used to be more prevalent. Philip Yancey (Disappointment With God) points out the results of direct communication and displays of power by God. In the life of the first couple and Abraham, God’s visibility and directness didn’t cause them to choose rightly. Then, with Moses God shows Himself in mighty ways - the burning bush, the plagues, drinking water from a rock and digesting the miracle of manna in their bellies while wandering in the wilderness, crossing the Red Sea onto dry ground. Solomon had everything a man could want. Success may have eliminated any crises of disappointment with God, but God’s directness and mighty displays of power did not lead to righteous living or foster love.
Jesus knew well the shallow effect of miracles in Moses’ day, and in Elijah’s. Miracles attracted crowds but rarely encouraged long-term faithfulness. Humans have short attention spans. Faith, the forgiveness of sins, the power of the Evil one seemed to be Jesus’ biggest concerns. The crowd sought instant solutions to their problems in the physical world – poverty, illness, political, oppression. Jesus did not live up to their expectations (Yancey, 111). Miracles make little difference to those determined to deny God. Constant miracles do not lead to changed lives. Does God acting like a genie in a bottle, answering all our prayers, always lead to important lifestyle changes? Some things must be believed in order to be seen.
God, rather than mowing down Jerusalem, Rome, and every other worldly power, chose the slow, necessary way of the Incarnation as a way to change the world. The Cross reveals a God who was willing to prove Himself through love than power. Love is more persuasive when it involves sacrifice. When you read the New Testament, you will not find the outrage of Job or the despair of Ecclesiastes. The writers of the New Testament were convinced Jesus had changed the universe forever. God then turned it over to believers where the Spirit resided in them. We learn as biblical history unfolds that what God could not win through power, he would attempt to win through suffering. God wanted what any parent wants: a happy household of children who return their parent’s love and love one another. It just is not true that if God prevents problems we will follow.
If God answered all or more of our prayers would we be closer and more obedient to God? Many will confess tremendous blessings were to their detriment in the long run. I have a confession. Please don’t tell God, but I am better off when He doesn’t answer my prayers all the time. The truth is the more I suffer, the more Christ-like I become. The more Christ-like I become, the better the person I am. I don’t pray for suffering but I have benefited from it. We human parents always shelter our children from pain, but that isn’t always in their best interests. God surely knows what is best for us. Sometimes, we just need to trust God rather than demand God be like us.
Though suffering was not God original design, the argument can be made it is necessary to change a person’s heart after sin entered the world. Jesus knew this, thus He came to this earth as a suffering servant than ruling king. People wanted the Messiah to blow everyone away and take away their problems. Would this have changed man’s heart to God original intent where we would treat one another the wish we wished to be treated? What real changes take please when we get what we want instantly? When God spoke to us directly and there were more visible miracles, people didn’t live according to the standards their own conscious dictates. Besides, God constantly interfering with freedom goes against His original design that people have the freedom to choose or reject Him.
Miracles such as physical healings can and do happen, but based on the number of lives and times covered in the Bible, one doesn’t read a lot of biblical prayers seeking constant physical healing or for God to stop our emotional pain caused by others or circumstances. God doesn’t promise prayers answered according to our wishes to avoid any kind of pain, nor does this indicate God is not present or caring. I can claim no miracles in my life unless you wish to include internal motivations being changed, which may be the greatest miracles of all. Left to my own devices, I hate to think the kind of person I might be. Don’t underestimate the enormous world changes that would take place if lack of self-centeredness were a universal habit. As we will discuss below, I believe we can follow the example of Paul or Jesus and pray for a miracle or healing, but we must also accept God’s answer and move on. We must interpret God not answering our prayer our way as the best way to run the universe with the desires He has to change the world.
Since the future is not predetermined due to freedom given by our Creator, since true love and genuine moral behavior cannot be forced, don’t underestimate the power of prayer. In a free world, God does not stop evil but often works through others, including His Son, to change the world. Prayer never was meant to intervene in the freedom of others to choose evil. Moses did ask for mercy in behalf of his people. Paul and Jesus did ask for a miracle. But prayer mostly in the Bible seems to be “Dear God help me to be a representative of yours in a world with a bent toward evil.” One doesn’t read a lot of biblical prayers “take this away,” rather “help me.” Even Jesus did not pray for instant miracles and constant relief from pain. Paul did not seem to pray always for relief from suffering but understood suffering was a part of a free world and asked for God’s help in the midst of expected suffering. We seem to question mostly why suffering is present in the world we live when; looking at my own actions and others, it seems we should expect suffering.
How Do You Talk To An Invisible God
What could possible be the purpose of prayer if God already knows our needs, even out thoughts? God was forced to change His style of communication after Adam and Eve sinned, but He didn’t give up on us. Prayer became our link to God, as direct communication did not change the world for the better. One reason for prayer is to build a relationship not just to make requests. How does one talk to an invisible God? Prayer simply is conversation with God. Prayer is talking to God in an attempt to draw closer. God is multilingual so it matters not the language you use. The Psalms and other biblical passages suggest God can handle your anger as well as your pleasantries. Think of God as the ideal best friend, where you can speak about anything that is on your heart. Prayer is our lifeline to God and necessary to develop a relationship with Him. Regular communication with God develops the necessary level of dependence we must have with God, so He might use us to change the world for the better.
The best analogy I can think of is how a husband best develops an intimate relationship with his wife. Becoming more intimate with my wife is directly related to how much time I spend talking and thinking about her. There are of course times when apart or together, when we have another responsibility, that our total focus cannot be on one another. If this is always the case though, I should not expect a close relationship. What we do when not around our spouse may best describe our relationship with God since He is invisible to us. When not in Janet’s presence, I develop intimacy by still thinking about her, taking into consideration how my actions might impact her, even having a conversation with her though not physically present. . I may even call her to just let her know I am thinking about her. This serves two purposes. This lets her know I love her, and this reminds me how much I love her. My nature is to take her for granted. Constant communication keeps one from taken their spouse for granted and becoming more like-minded.
This is how we develop our relationship with God. We know we love God, but intimacy happens as a result of spending time with Him. Prayer is how we do this. Prayer doesn’t have to be formal. Prayer doesn’t have to be long-winded. I once heard the longest prayer in the Bible could be read in less than three minutes. Prayer to build intimacy is not usually public. Jesus discussed the important of private prayer so as to avoid focusing more on what people think than God. Prayer is sharing our wishes, needs, thoughts, and dreams. Prayer is asking God what He is thinking. Though God does not answer me audible, talking builds a relationship. Though I do not hear Him with the physical ear, the ears of my mind hear Him. God has spoken through the Bible so I need to read and learn what He has already said. God also gave us one another for help. Though daily devotional prayer time may be helpful for many, what is important is to build a relationship with God through daily, undistracted reflections, which can be accomplished in a diversity of ways. The Bible says to pray continually (I Thes. 5:17).
We must realize God knows our requests before they are spoken. He hears the thoughts of our mind. He is God! We need not spend all our time going over our wish list. Certainly, some purpose is served in voicing a request. I may know, though certainly less than God knows, what my child needs. My child asking allows me to honor their freedom rather than oppose my will. Such conversations build intimacy and allow getting to know one another even better. We must on faith believe that God always, and I mean always, has our best interest in mind. We also know that it is not always best our first request be granted. When I was a child, thank God my parents didn’t always give me what I requested. They often gave me what I needed. No one is capable or loves us more than our Heavenly father. God could have gone on without us after our rejection, but thankfully He pursues us relentlessly.
What Do We Pray For?
There are many aspects of prayers. Jesus’ advised in Matthew 6, when asked how one should pray, that one’s prayer life consist of praising God for who He is (v.9), seeking God’s will by perhaps petitioning in times of personal or national crises (v.10), asking for daily necessities (v.11), asking for forgiveness making sure we first forgive those who have forsaken us (v.12), and requesting strength to avoid temptation from the evil one (v.13). All of these aspects of prayer are crucial for building an intimate relationship with God, but for our purposes, we will focus on the petition aspect of prayer. What do we petition God for?
One aspect of petition prayer that may overlook but seems to be the most prevalent in Scripture is the relational aspect of prayer that involves individual, character change. Even in the “whatever ask in His name you shall receive” passages, the context often is wisdom and endurance in trails (James 1:6-8; 4:1-3; 5:13-18; I John 3:19-22; 5:14-15). God never offered us a free ticket to a life without problems. God placed a higher priority on freedom and true love, which is the ability to choose. Assurance of prayer is more defined concerning matters such as dealing with strength over the evil one (i.e. temptation). Ephesians 1: 16-18 is an example of Paul praying for the Ephesus believers for hope and character development through wisdom (See also Ephesians 3: 14-21):
I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints.
The book Teach Us To Pray edited by D. A. Carson gives us a great deal of insight in prayers for personal needs. In James 4:1-3 the root causes of struggles and conflicts between believers is shown to be frustrated desire.
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures
Their desires remain frustrated because they fight instead of asking God what they need. Their prayers are unanswered because they ask with wrong motives. One must be godly to pray godly. Commit every need to God, looking to Him to meet those needs in whatever way He chooses. As in James 1:6-8, there is a qualification to the promise of answered prayer as implied in James 4:3: there must be a genuine intention to do God’s will and a willingness to be satisfied with His solutions. Self-centered prayer is the wrong way to go. (108-109)
I John 3:21-22 says: “Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.” This passage does not mean that God answers prayer according to the measure of our obedience but rather God delights and is able to answer the prayers of those who are truly His children. With obedience to God’s ways we can have assurance in our prayers. What loving parent would not do what is best for their child? God-honoring prayer will express a desire to know and do the will of God; prayer is not an attempt to persuade God to fulfill our own ambitions and desires. God will always give us what we need if we desire His ways. The Bible makes the assumption our requests are always answered because we are always asking God’s will, not our way. “When we learn to want what God wants, we have the joy of receiving His answer to our petitions.” (117)
Many of the Old Testament prayers are not about petitioning for things but begging for God’s mercy when His justice was rightly due. The Old Testament prophets cared greatly about God’s reputation and how others might view Him. Many times prayers related to God’s passion and promise to extend His gospel to all through the Israelites. Paul’s mission and prayers were about extending the gospel to the rest of the world. In Exodus 32:11-14 Moses pleaded for God’s mercy and forgiveness for the Israelites, though they deserved punishment. Moses was concerned for God’s reputation and how this may impact the way others viewed Him.
But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "LORD ," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Moses also prayed for God’s presence as he led his people to the Promised Land God had previously pledged. Moses surely was concerned God be seen as a promise keeper. Exodus 33:16 says: “How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?” In Daniel 9 God’s servant prays for the mercy of God both for personal reasons and for the very reputation of God. We today are in good company when our prayers concern God’s reputation and perceptions among unbelievers, so they might believe in God and have an intimate relationship with their Creator.
Certainly, there are examples in the Old Testament when miraculous requests are made to God for personal reasons. In I Samuel 1 Hanna pleaded to God for a son that she would commit to His service. Hannah eventually conceived Samuel who went on to serve God. Elijah prayed for a miracle from God so observers might recognize God from the other gods and His request was granted (I Kings 18). Any requests can be made to God, though we should examine our motives. It appears God wants people to pray and petition Him at least initially, and leave the decision-making up to God. This may have something to do with praying in His name. We must learn to accept God’s answer. In II Samuel 12:16-23 David requested God save his baby but the baby died. David then responded: “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
Many are fooled by a false gospel taught in some churches and on television that implies enough faith rids one of suffering in their life. I am not sure what Bible these false teachers are smoking! Who of us doesn’t struggle with the wish that God was some genie in a bottle rather than a Presence in the midst of tribulations? These false teachers simply ignore at the expense of others the stories about the lives of Jesus, Paul, the apostles, and Old Testament prophets. The Bible is abundantly clear that lack of faith is not the reason for physical ailments or economic hardships. God doesn’t promise us an instant escape from our problems. One doesn’t read a lot of prayers in the Bible that read “God, take this problem from me,” but rather “God, help me persevere.” Someone once said: “God does not promise us a panacea, but He does promise us peace in the midst of life’s storms. With God’s peace, we can stand firm in distress, disease, destruction, and even death.” Because of freedom God’s hope is not a life without problems but His presence in this life and the hope of life one day where sin and evilness don’t prevail.
True friends do not assume if you just have enough faith, you will be healed of all physical or emotional ailments. This false theology implies when one is not healed, it is because they lack enough faith. Job’s so-called friends offered such erroneous advice, which can be emotionally devastating. Many refer to Matthew 18:19-20: "Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” These verses are in the context of where believers are advised how to handle another believer sinning against them. If necessary we must take our brother sinning against us to friends and even the church in hopes of reconciliation, thus two or more are gathered in agreement. This passage is not about praying for healing any infirmity we have. Teachings that suggest God will always heal if just petitioned cannot be defended biblically. The story of Job in the Old Testament and Paul’s thorn in the flesh in the New Testament (I Cor. 12:7-10) are examples that teach lack of God’s healing is not a sign of unfaithfulness. Were Job and Paul not healed, was Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane not answered because they simply failed to pray with another believer?
Jesus’ and Paul’s Style Of Praying
The book of Job provides some insight when it comes to prayer. We learn from Job’s accusers that friends should not assume suffering is due to sins in one’s life. Job was considered a righteous man. A person who believes that all their troubles will be swept away through a relationship with God is left with the logical explanation that God has failed them. When God does not intervene the way one might desire, one should be careful not to overanalyze or think they know why God acted the way He did. God doesn’t intervene just because one is faithful. Job was faithful. God didn’t inform Job why He didn’t answer his prayer.
Lessons learned from Job are consistent when we read about Jesus and Paul praying to God. I will suggest a particular model for petitionary prayers that emerges in Scripture, but by no means does this model precisely fit every example of prayer in the Bible. Believers certainly can take any request to their heavenly Father. Though not always explicitly stated, it is assumed one’s motives for their request are pure. Upon their request, the believer should accept the answer from God whether positive or negative. One should avoid overanalyzing. Let God run the universe. He will always do what is best. After a brief time if God does not grant the request, it is best to move on and continually pray to God leaning on Him for peace in the midst of trials and tribulation. One should not assume God is causing us pain purposely to teach us a lesson. Is this why others in third world countries are starving? Suffering happens in a free world.
In Luke 22: 41-44 Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane: “He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” Jesus knew from the very beginning that God had chosen Him to take on the sins of the world and suffer in their behalf. Jesus was hoping there was another way that His Father could see to accomplish their mission. Jesus by praying “not as I will, but as you will” was prepared to accept God’s answer. He also prayed for strength (an angel was sent). God obviously did not intervene. Jesus accepted God’s answer and leaned on Him for strength. Clowney in Teach Us To Pray best summarizes what we can learn from Jesus’ prayer:
Never will any child of God be called upon to bear the abandonment to wrath that was the Father’s will for his Son. Only Jesus could endure that for us. Yet in our prayers we, too may ask the Father to remove our cup of suffering. When the cup remains, Jesus himself enables us to say, ‘Not as I will, but as you will’. His grace is sufficient; his power is made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:8-10) [150]
Paul’s prayer follows a similar pattern. II Cor. 12: 7-10 may be the only place Paul gives insight into prayer for physical healing. Paul petitioned God for the miraculous, that his burden be lifted.
Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Paul seemed to have prayed for healing on three separation occasions. We do not know the time span or other particular details. We do know when God said no, Paul accepted God’s answer and ceased petitioning God for the miraculous. Then we know Paul for the rest of his life continually lean on God for strength and guidance, so “this incident suggests that there is a time to cease petitioning God for something and to rest in the same grace and power of Christ promised especially to the apostle in his distress but available to all who such divine enabling.” (cf. Eph. 3:14-21) [Carson, 91]
Conclusion
An open view of God’s sovereignty can answer many questions about unanswered prayers. God created a world with significant freedom to oppose His will. God forfeited control so that there would be the opportunity for genuine love. Any parent realizes you cannot force your child to love you and still have a truly, satisfying, intimate, relationship. God by guaranteeing freedom could not guarantee we would never experience any problems. One doesn’t read a lot of prayers in the Bible that read “God, take this problem from me,” but rather “God, help me preserve.” The Scriptures speak not of God as a genie in a bottle but as a Presence in the midst of tribulations. God’s hope is not a life without problems but His presence in this life and the hope of life one day where sin and evil is not present. Problems happen in a free world, but God has responded loud and clear, for those willing to listen, through the miraculous birth, suffering, death, and resurrection of His son. God suffered, as we must.
When praying for oneself, much of prayer in Scripture is asking for godly character in difficult circumstances. Miracles can occur on a regular basis when we respond to situations as God would as opposed to our first inclination. We must constantly ask God for His help in dealing with temptation, not taking revenge against our enemies, loving others as we wished to be loved, dealing with physical pain no fault of our own. These prayers are always answered. God wants to help everyone before they pray, but God surely respects one’s desire for complete influence. God perhaps waits to have complete or much more influence in one’s life until they request such help from God. It is “quite reasonable to view petitionary prayers as a means whereby we grant God the permission to influence our noncognitive states or mind and/or share with us those cognitive insights concerning ourselves and others that will help us better live out our Christian commitment in the world.” (The Openness Of God, 162)
We can always pray for miracles in personal and national crisis situations, but we must let God run the universe by accepting His answer. God has the bigger picture including the “freedom” picture. We must have faith in God. We must not judge one’s faithfulness by how God answers prayers, as Job accusers did. We must not make Job’s mistake in thinking we can run a free universe better than our Creator, by always intervening with the evil intentions of others or never allowing suffering. Submit your request to God as frequently as needed and accept His answer. When we don’t know what we should pray for, Paul writes we can simply ask the Holy Spirit to pray in our behalf “because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.”(Rm 8:26-27)
When praying for others, we know God does not answer some prayers because God cannot interfere in the lives of others if they do not want this. God will not override the freedom of others because we request Him to do so such as in a troubled marriage. We can pray for one’s openness to influence. These prayers may be as much for oneself in sharing our burdens with our Creator. We can assume God does all He can without violating freedoms. I would suggest God does not depend on the prayers of others to fulfill this aspect of His character. It is difficult to imagine God refraining from intervening in one’s life such as a child of an alcoholic father because someone did not pray a certain prayer. Many Old Testament prayers are not about God doing more but showing mercy or forgiveness. God is already doing all He can.
Prayer can be an excuse for inactivity. For instance, God cannot save the world from terrorism while His people do nothing. Leaders must show strong leadership, men and women in the armed forces unbelievable courage and sacrifice. Terrorism is fed by irrational religious beliefs, which must be counter in many different circles with absolute truth and love. God prevents evil when people change, when people rise up and take a stand against evil. Sometimes we need to wear out our feet and our knees. God may simply be waiting on us to be an answer to prayer. When all believers and the church act in unison, mighty works of God are accomplished. When all people in a nation act in unison to combat evil in their own lives and the lives of others, mighty works are accomplished. God yearns so badly to act through His people.
Our relationship with God through prayer is vital in our becoming more like Jesus to change the world for the better. We must request God’s involvement in our lives for God is a tremendous respecter of freedom. I believe sometimes if we don’t pray God won’t, not that He can’t. The Parable of the Persistent Friend (Luke 11:5-13) and the Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8) teach the necessity of persevering prayer. The Bible suggests praying with persistence until God says no. Such dependence on God can guarantee our satisfaction with His answers. God is waiting for our invitations on a daily basis. The biblical model is always to pray to God for anything on our heart but to leave the answer and the running of the universe up to Him. We have no idea how our prayers impact others, whether answered or not. Besides, for God to always answer our prayers is not always in our best interests. Instant healing can lead to less dependence on God, which is never a good thing. Answers to prayers are not always in the best interests of those we have influence on. Many are more influenced by how one handles in grace pain than health, poverty than richness. Jesus accomplished more by suffering than by miracles.
Chapter 6
God And The Future
Does God Predetermine Or Know The Future?
There are biblical scholars who believe Scriptures teach that God foreordains (predetermines) all past, present, and future events and outcomes. I am opposed vehemently to this view of the future. The ramifications and logical conclusions of a preordained future can cause tremendous stumbling blocks for those seeking to understand God. Many believers may derive some comfort with the belief that God controls all things, but such a comfort may come at too high a cost to God’s character and priority on freedom. Many would question if evil is predetermined, whether this makes God the creator of evil. Many traditional theists though only suggest God’s knows the future and the free decision made, not that He preordains all of the future. Many would rightly question, based on human logic, whether there is genuine freedom whether we argue God predetermined the future or even just knows the future.
Human freedom seems to be a top priority of God’s. Chuck Colson writes: “…genuine love cannot be coerced. Also, without free will, we would not be capable of moral responsibility, creativity, obedience, loyalty, or heroism. The only way God could create beings that are full human was to take the risk that they would use their freedom to choose evil.” (How Now Shall We Live, 213) God does not demand you believe in Him or else be considered an infidel to be killed. When family members leave certain religions, they are ostracized and possibly murdered. No god comes near matching the love of God. God gives us a choice whether to have an earthly as well as a heavenly relationship with Him upon death (See God and Hell). Granted, the Bible teaches we will all have an accounting of our actions with our Creator some day, but this seems only right. If you murder someone and don’t get caught on earth, justice must be served at some time for the sake of victims. Justice delayed does not mean justice is not served.
God’s Predetermines The Future?
There are many debatable, biblical, passages that seem to suggest both points of view, that God foreordains or simply knows the future and the viewpoint that the future is open and dependent on the actions of humans. There are many fine books that discuss traditional versus open theology. Biblical scholars, who believe God inspired the Old and New Testaments, do not agree on what the biblical authors were intending to communicate to their readers about God and His determination and knowledge of the future. John Frame defends the future being foreordained in a response to Open Theism. He suggests that with the problem of evil there are some insoluble mysteries. He argues from Scriptures:
The uniform witness of Scripture is that the evils of this life come from God…God foreordains the worst evil of all, sin, which is at the root of all other evils. So Scripture often speaks of God’s foreordination of the consequences of sin (see Ex.4:11; Deut. 32:39; I Sam. 2:6-7; Eccl. 7:13-14; Isa. 45:5-7; Lam. 3:37-38; Amos 3:6). These passages not only speak of particular situations, but ascribe to God all the evils of the world…Arguably, we would not have known God’s love and mercy to this extent, had God not foreordained the Fall and our redemption. (No Other God, 140)
Though the above statement may shock or confuse some readers, Frame is very qualified to write on this subject. His motive seems to be to honor God’s authority. Traditional and open theists both desire to protect God’s image. Scholars who I believe would support Frame’s viewpoint endorse his book. They have written on issues such as divine sovereignty and human responsibility. They include William Edgar, Roger Nicole, John Piper, D.A. Carson, Bruce Ware, and Robert Strimple. Frame also argues that though God foreordains evil this does not make humans any less responsible for their sins, that Scriptures make it clear that our choices are part of God’s eternal plan but we are fully responsible for them. “… God had made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct. Therefore, according to Scripture, God’s authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility.”(124)
Pinnock argues instead God does not foreordain all of the future before it happens:
Evils happen that are not supposed to happen, that grieve and anger God. Freewill theism is the best way to account for this fact. To say that God hates sin while secretly willing it, to say that God warns us not to fall away though it is impossible, to say that God loves the world while excluding most people from an opportunity of salvation, to say that God warmly invites sinners to come knowing all the while that they cannot possibly do so – such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when this is just a euphemism for nonsense. (Systemic Theology, 115)
Critics of Pinnock might suggest we must not resort to human arguments but think biblically. But, both open and traditional theists believe Scriptures are supernaturally guided by God. Both seek to understand what the biblical authors meant to convey about God’s nature. Frame and others seem to argue there is biblical support that God preordains all things, thus logically leading us to believe God preordained evil. These scholars will also argue that God is not responsible for evil and humans have genuine freedom, though this seems illogically. Traditionalists seem caution to apply the test of common sense or logic, but then they sometimes refer to problems with their views as tensions or unsolvable mysteries. This implies their views don’t seem logical. Must we believe God in the beginning gave Lucifer the desire to sin? Did God will a rebellion by humans against Himself? Are evils, sufferings, and problems we experience simply a grand scheme by God, instead of by-products resulting from a free world?
If God foreordain evil so He might accomplish perhaps a greater good, this seemingly makes God the Creator of evil. This then appears to make God evil. The Bible implies that evil is because of sin. God tempts no on with evil. (James 1:13; I John 1:5) God responded to sin, though not in the way humans might due to their weaknesses. God responded through the Incarnation. God did not take the painless way out. God did not respond to those who opposed Him the way we do with our enemies. To say God predetermines all of the future, thus implying God preordains evil, is a very real stumbling block for most people. It is a view that certainly can drive others to not trust God. It is very hard to defend God’s actions with this viewpoint. I will argue below that God does not know all of the future, much less predetermine the future, because the future is open.
God’s Knowledge Of The Future
Many do not suggest God predetermines the future but that God does know all of future from the beginning. Another possible view is that God is omniscient (all knowing) but does not know all of the future because all of the future is not predetermined. We need to define the scope of foreknowledge with care. God does know what is knowable. He is superior to humans in knowing all the possibilities of decisions that can be made by others and what He will do. This view of divine foreknowledge seems to give more integrity to the Bible when it speaks of God relenting, grieving, and rejoicing. We could say God knows what is going to happen but still engages with us; it simply is harder to relate to. God appreciates and responds to the events of our lives as they happen. God does not have to predetermine everything to be in control. God does not force others to make evil decisions, so somehow He can accomplish His will. God is everywhere in the universe at the same time, so His knowledge is hard to imagine. With God’s omniscience (complete knowledge) and His omnipotence (unlimited power, authority, influence), one can imagine how God does not loss control though the future is open. This is what makes Him God.
If all of the future is known beforehand, people rightly could question if there is genuine freedom and accountability. If God knows I am going to wear blue jeans on September 1, 2010, am I really free to wear anything else on that day. It is possible and can be defended biblically that God does not know the future; the future is waiting to happen. God has not made His mind up on all things regarding what He will do or what others will do. Time and time again in the Bible God waits and waits and waits - hoping to bless and show mercy. God created a world in the beginning where there was no sin; He created a world with human freedom. He put the highest priority on the choice to love. This did allow the possibility people would choose to hate. God could have controlled the world but the highest good would have never been achieved.
There are very real tensions that exist. It was seemingly prophesied ahead of time Judas would betray Jesus. Did God foreordain or foreknow this evil? Did Judas really have the freedom to betray or not betray Jesus, thus can he be held accountable for his actions? I will argue in biblical support of the future being open as opposed to the traditional understanding that the future is already fixed. It seems one must say all of the future must be unknown or all of the future must be known. It doesn’t seem consistent to say “some but not all.” I think we must at least avoid the extreme viewpoint, which suggest God predetermined the future thus seemingly foreordaining evil, if it cannot be proven without debate from the Bible. When there is debate among sincere, qualified, biblical scholars we should err for the time being, until we meet God, on the side of the interpretation that is less of a stumbling block to Christians and those seeking a relationship with God. Biblical references to God’s foreknowledge, human freedom, divine emotions, and prophecy help us to understand God and His relationship to the future.
God’s Foreknowledge
John Boykin writes in regards to Richard Rice’s book God’s Foreknowledge And Man’s Free Will “a virtuoso piece of thinking…He has put his finger on a painfully sensitive spot in our theology and has probed it responsibly.” I will reference this book frequently below because of its eloquent defense of God’s openness concerning the future. Rice writes on God’s foreknowledge:
The Greek New Testament speaks of God as “foreknowing” three times (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Pet. 1:20, as having “foreknowledge” two times (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2), and as “predestining” or “deciding beforehand” four times (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5). In each instance, the word refers to some aspect of salvation history as the fulfillment of a preexistent plan. And the use of such expressions as “before the foundation of the world” (I Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:4), and “before the ages” (I Cor. 2:7) indicates that the plan existed as early as Creation. (83)
God’s foreknowledge is not God peering into a fixed future to tell us ahead of time what is going to happen. References to God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament refer to God’s plan of salvation. A major stumbling block for many is the biblical argument that God elects certain individuals for eternal life and not others, thus necessarily damning those not elected to eternal damnation. I will devote an entire chapter to this matter and what the likely correct interpretation is based on what we understand about God’s nature. (Chapter on God and Salvation) I defend, when it comes to the salvation of individuals, God’s foreknowledge specifies what His intentions are through Christ to offer hope to those who desire His help. God’s foreknowledge does not include predetermining who will choose His salvation, thus suggesting the decisions of all individuals are fixed. As well, biblical accounts of human freedom, God’s emotions, and conditional biblical prophecies suggest the future not being foreordained.
Human Freedom
The reality of human freedom is throughout the Old and New Testament (i.e. Gen. 2:16-17; Matt. 11:28; I Tim. 2:3-6), which strongly imply the future is open. The most well-know verse in Scripture shouts our freedom: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Certainly, there are always limitations on human freedom depending on when and where you are born or significant influences in your life, but Scriptures seem abundantly clear the choice to choose good or evil, God or gods is real. There may be even a limitation to choose to the contrary once one has engaged in rebellious behaviors for some time. There can be a self-hardening in evil (i.e. Pharaoh). Sometimes, God did guarantee Israel would be the victor in war in defeating their enemy, but Israel only attacked those nations that rebelled against God’s civilized ways. God always gives individuals and nations the opportunity to change from their evil ways. But, patience must have a limit or justice is never served and change may never occur. But, the Bible is amply clear that humans determine their own future with the significant freedom they have to make choices. Must we interpret literally thousands of passages in light of a few passages that suggest at first reading God predetermines certain decisions?
There are more than a few passages, which require some thoughtful thinking how divine sovereignty and human freedom are not contradictory events. In the Genesis’ story of Joseph and his brothers, freewill and human emotions not controlled by God definitely seem to be in action here. Joseph brothers were jealous and plotted to kill him (Genesis 37:18). God didn’t plant this thought in their mind. Sibling jealously had been stirring for years. Thanks to Reuben and probably because of divine intervention on God’s part, Joseph’s brothers decide to spare his life and instead sell him to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. The rest is history. In Genesis 45:4-7 Joseph says to his brothers when they visit Egypt years later:
Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, "I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”
One may at first reading these verses interpret Joseph’s ordeal as a preordained event by God from the beginning of time, but the story doesn’t read this way. This is more a story about God leveraging evil to bring about good than God causing evil or overriding the freedom of individuals. The brothers plotted early on to kill Joseph. Reuben argued to not have Joseph killed and thrown in to a cistern, so he could rescue him later from the brother’s plot to kill him. (Gen. 37:22) It is possible Joseph is saying though the brothers’ first intentions were to kill Joseph, God intervened to save His life, by having him sold, to accomplish His great plan for the nation of Israel. Joseph offered some comfort to his brothers that God brought good from the choices they made. God used their actions to accomplish a greater purpose. God did not have to preordain this evil plot, but God did save Joseph from death for salvific historical purposes. God had promised to use the Jewish nation, so to be a blessing to all nations. (Gen. 12:3) The coming of the Messiah, born a Jew, fulfilled that promise. Surely, the writer is conveying that God can respond to evil initiating by humans to serve His purposes. Joseph later says: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good…” (50:20) The fact that Joseph said to the brothers “do not be angry for selling me here” (45:5) does not exonerate the brothers of their evil intentions or actions. The future is not some preordained event where human are merely puppets being pull by God every which way.
A present day example may be the life of Charles Colson and his sentence to prison after the Watergate matter. I might write the following about these events. “God sent Colson to prison ahead of time to accomplish great things for prisoners and their families for this generation and generations to come. God sent Colson to save lives for an eternity through the power of Christ.” God used circumstances in Chuck Colson’s life to accomplish His purpose. I am not wanting to convey Charles Colson’s imprisonment was a preordain event, where human choices were circumvented by God. I am writing to teach that God can accomplish great things for His purposes based on events that happen through the free will decision of others.
The story of Pharaoh suggests humans on their own accord initiate evil and God reserves the prerogative to then intervene to further accomplish His Plan, which was to deliver the Messiah through the Israelite nation as a blessing to all nations. Exodus 4:21 says: “The LORD said to Moses, When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” But, Exodus 8:32 says: “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.” In this story are numerous examples of God doing the hardening and Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Obviously, the writer included these acts of self-will because he understood Pharaoh had a choice in the matter. As it is always God’s nature to allow one to not rebel, Moses communicated God’s plan to Pharaoh so he might have a choice to cooperate (6:28). Regardless though of what Pharaoh chose to do, God was going to accomplish His plan to free the Egyptians.
Traditional theists may point out that even before Moses meets with Pharaoh, God says He will harden Pharaoh’s heart. (7:3-5) But, God didn’t have to peer into the future to be faithful to His word. Many of God’s prophecies are understood to be conditional upon whether humans obey or not, though not always stated explicitly in the text. For example, Jonah advised Ninevah they would be destroyed in 40 days, but then God relented because the Ninevites turn from their evil ways. With Pharaoh, there is no story to report that Pharaoh repented. Freedom to obey or rebel against God is on practically every page of Scriptures. God would not have been a liar if Pharaoh cooperated from the beginning and it became unnecessary for God to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
Many of God’s prophecies or predictions of the future are conditional. As mentioned, Jonah was advised by God to go to Ninevah to proclaim that the city would be overthrown (Jonah 3:1-4). But, God is always open to repentance of evil and in fact Ninevah did seek God’s forgiveness, much to Jonah’s disgust. God says about Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew (chose) you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (1:5) Jeremiah still resisted and ultimately could have not followed God’s will for His life. (v.6) It just is not in God’s nature to cause one to commit evil or impose His will without the freedom to rebel. There is no indication that those who wish to be obedient to God cannot do so, though there is a self-hardening in persistent evil. But, God will never turn His back on those who are repentant. God does not forced or locked people into unbelief or actions against their will. God used Pharaoh for His purposes to accomplish His will, which is always centered on His love for people. God used choices Pharaoh made to accomplish a greater good not intended by Pharaoh’s evil intentions.
What is meant though by “God hardens one’s heart?” Traditionalists argue foreordination or determination ahead of time and human responsibility are somehow compatible though beyond human comprehension. We don’t have to conclude God made Pharaoh sin because of some predetermined plan from the beginning of time. The prophecy could have been conditional, but the most likely solution is in the idiom of the Hebrew language. William Green in Classical Evangelical Essays, edited by Walter Kaiser, points out in Turkey one might say: “I made my steamer run away” rather than “I missed my steamer.” It would be understood what was meant. A reasonable interpretation of “God hardened” is that either God permitted or God simply withdrew His influence because of choices made. There is a self-hardening in evil. It is not as if God hardens one’s heart despite their wish to be obedient to God. This is totally opposite of God’s nature described in the rest of Scriptures. Green also point out it is perfectly acceptable to interpret the more objectionable phrase by the more explanatory phase occurring the in the same context, which harmonizes with the rest of Scriptures’ portrayal of God’s character. God’s hardening is not arbitrary and mechanical. God does not act in a way in which one cannot resist without the opportunity to change. In this example God does not do evil to bring good; God uses evil present to accomplish a greater good not intended by Pharaoh. (pp 210-11)
Walter Kaiser, an Old Testament scholar, gives us further insight into the Hebrew language that is relevant regarding Pharaoh as well as numerous other Old Testament passages that seem to suggest God is directly responsible for evil. For example Exodus 4:24 says the Lord was about to kill Moses.
The syntax of Old Testament Hebrew tends to be unconcerned with secondary causes; thus, what God permitted is often said in the Old Testament to be done directly by him. Thus if, as we believe, God permitted Moses to be afflicted with a severe sickness, or some other danger, the proper way to express that in Hebrew language patterns would be to say that God wanted to kill him. It was not simply that Moses was sick and near death; it was a case of the sovereignty of God, who controls all events and happenings on planet earth. Thus, the secondary causes were not important. The ultimate cause took precedence as a means of explanation (More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, 72)
God’s Emotions
Many passages speak of God relenting, changing his mind, or grieving. It seems the best way to do justice to these passages is to make the assumption that the future is open. The traditional view of foreknowledge suggests since the future is already determined in all events, God already knows what is going to happen or what He is going to do. Genesis 6: 5-6 says: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” If God preordained evil and the fall of man before it actually happened, this passage seems nonsensical. Why would God regret something He had intended all along as part of His plan? Do God’s predetermined actions “deeply trouble” Him? Understanding the future is open, that God does not predetermine or even know the future, appears to give more integrity to the biblical passages that speak of God regretting or grieving. God appreciates and responds to the events of our lives as they happen.
In Exodus 32 Moses had left his people to go up on Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments from God. While he was gone, the Israelites begin worshipping false idols. God become very anger and intended to punish His people.
“I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "LORD,” he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
But Moses pleaded to God for mercy and God answered his prayer: “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (v.14). This is only one of numerous passages where Scriptures states God intended to take certain actions but did not after prayer or repentance. If the future is fixed, can Moses’ prayer really persuade God? Passages such as these strongly suggest the future is open and is dependent on our prayers as well as the choice people make. Neither God’s actions nor the future is predetermined.
Numerous other passages clearly support an open future. In Jonah, much to Jonah’s displeasure, God changed His mind with the Ninevites. God relented from sending them calamity when they repented. In Amos 7 God relented. Also, Jeremiah 26:1-3 says:
Early in the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, this word came from the LORD: "This is what the LORD says: Stand in the courtyard of the LORD's house and speak to all the people of the towns of Judah who come to worship in the house of the LORD . Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word. Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.
Thankfully, in response to choices human makes, God’s predetermines some events such as the virgin birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Otherwise, the biblical authors don’t seem to understand the future is closed or predetermined. (See also Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20) God relates to His people as if the future is open. God doesn’t foreordain evil or disregard human freedom. Thankfully, God does change His mind sometimes to not punish. God changing His mind doesn’t mean His moral character changes. It only suggests God will not carry out certain intended actions if people repent. God changing His mind is only problematic if you insist the future is not open and God has already preordained all events past, present, and future. An open future does far greater justices to those passages describing God’s emotions such as grieving or relenting.
Biblical Prophecy
Biblical prophecies can be challenging to explain if we are to argue for genuine freedom as we normally think about it and that the future is not fix. Much of prophecy is not problematic for it simply states what God intends to do in the future at His timing. For example, the Bible tells ahead of time that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem, that He will be born of a virgin, and that He will resurrect from the dead. These events did not interfere with human freedom by requiring human cooperation, nor do they require all of the future be fixed.
Many prophecies are conditional based on whether people choose to obey God or not, and this is clearly stated in the text. If God is obeyed disaster will not visit. If God continues to be rebelled against, there are consequences. God warned Jonah he was going to destroy Nineveh in 40 days but God relented when the people turn from their wicked ways (Jonah 3). Such prophecies in Scriptures clearly defend the notion that the future is not fixed. These prophecies must be taken into account with more difficult prophecies, which many assume God is peering into a fixed future. Jeremiah 18:7-10 explains many of God’s predictions are based on whether people obey or disobey.
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Some prophecies, which predict downfalls of nations hundreds of year before it happens or the actions of people years before they are even born, are more challenging to defend against the notion that prophecy is only God peering into a fixed future to tell us ahead of time what is going to happen. Rice writes extensively about such predictive prophecies.
Let us begin by examining various ways of interpreting predictive prophecies. Our purpose in suggesting such models is not to provide formulas that will precisely fit every, or even any specific prophecy. We only wish to show that the phenomenon of predictive prophecy is compatible with the concept of divine openness presented in this book. The following discussion therefore assumes that biblical prophecies intend to convey information about the future. The question is how they can do so if the future is genuinely open, and God does not possess absolute foreknowledge.
Divine predictions may express one thing or a combination of several different things. They may, to begin with, express God’s knowledge of what will occur in the future as the inevitable consequence of factors already present (e.g. Jer. 37:6-10). Since God’s knowledge of the present is exhaustive, his knowledge of the future must be unimaginably extensive. This provides a possible explanation of God’s ability to account for events in the distant future, events that may seem highly improbably at present.
For example, a skilled physician can predict the death of a seemingly healthy individual because he perceives symptoms that escape the untrained eye. Likewise, God may describe apparently unlikely events in the relatively remote future because He knows and understands the present exhaustively. Possibly this explains prophecies concerning the demise of one nation and the ascendancy of another, like those found in Daniel 2. God must be able to chart the future course of history in significant detail if He knows everything about the present, even on the view that the future is to some extent open.
Divine predictions may also express God’s own intentions to act in a certain way. Some of the things God predicts will happen because He intends to make them happen by taking direct action Himself. Some texts are thought to support absolute foreknowledge: “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46:9,10). Yet we find texts in close proximity that relate God’s predictions to His own activity: “I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it” (Isa. 46:11). “The former things I declared of old, they went forth from my mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass” (Isa. 48:3). So God announced certain things because He planned to do them Himself. Many Christians would see a clear expression of such divine intention in the biblical promises of Christ’s return. They believe that the glorious parousia will result from the intervention of God in human history. It does not result from the natural outworking of events. Indeed, they believe that the Second Coming will eventually occur no matter what course human history takes in the meantime. (Heb. 10:35-37) [77,78}
Cyrus is chosen by God centuries before his birth to bring Israel back to the Promised Land. (Isa. 44:28-45:13) God moves Cyrus’ heart to order the return (Ezra 1:1). It is very plausible that God is guaranteeing the future, not looking into the future. God intended to keep His promise to Israel. Remember, Israel was God’s vessel to bless all nations. In another instance God feed Elisha enemy information to avoid capture. (2 Kgs. 6:9-10)
…a specific prophecy may express both God’s knowledge of what will happen and His own intention to act in a certain way. This may provide an alternative to the traditional explanation of Isaiah 44:28-45:4, a classic example of predictive prophesy. According to conservative biblical scholarship, these verses designated Cyrus as the restorer of Israel’s fortunes more than a century before his birth. For many people this prophecy indicates that God can simply look into the future, see what’s going to happen, and make an announcement. In other words, this prophecy implies that the future must be there for God to see. But this is not the only explanation. God may have perceived factors that indicated the decline of Babylon and the rise of Persia a hundred years ahead…God may have been actively involved in bringing events to the place where this prophecy would be fulfilled.”(Rice, 78-79)
God’s unimaginable knowledge of the future, along with his power to act intentional to bring about circumstances, allows the possibility for genuine human freedom and the future not being fixed. Some suggest God’s knowledge includes knowing all possible decisions humans will make in the future and what decision they will choose, thus explaining how God does not override human freedoms to choose. But, this viewpoint seemingly develop so one could defend the future is fixed. Rice’s explanation lessens the tension between future predictions, divine sovereignty, and human freedom. Rice’s explanation does better justice to all the biblical texts that speaks of human freedom, conditional prophecies based on the actions of people, and God’s dynamic relationship with humans, which suggests an evolving than fixed relationship. The whole of Scripture suggests the future is not fixed. A fixed future rightly brings up questions whether there is genuine freedom or whether God foreordains evil. A fixed future seemingly devalues God experiencing our joys and pains in our lifetime. Openness theology does not belittle God but convey His greatness. It is not as if a fixed future is required so God can keep His promises.
As well as predictions of downfalls of nations beforehand, God predicts the actions of people years before they are even born. Moses, Jeremiah, Cyrus, Judas, and Peter are examples of roles or behaviors predicted ahead of time. Judas’ betraying actions were necessary to fulfill the greatest prophecy –the birth, life, death, and resurrection of God’s Son. God predicted or appointed Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was born (Jer. 1:5). The same is true with Cyrus as we saw above. John the Baptist before he was born was chosen to be a forerunner to Christ’s birth. Does this suggest all of history is determined? Certainly these men were the exception in Scripture. God does not choose most people in the Bible and today for a particular role. Also, it seems though not explicated stated in the text, these prophecies of these men were conditional on their obedience.
Ezra 1:1 says: “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia.” God was actively involved in choosing Cyrus for a specific task predicted a century before His birth. God may have even chosen the family for Cyrus to be born in, as He did John the Baptist. (Luke 1). God more than likely is going to choose parents who love God and would teach their children the same. Sometimes God chooses a person, or a nation such Israel, for a special role. I don’t have a problem with this. God is always acting and planning for the benefit of all. There is not a selfish bone in His body. God spoke directly to Ezra His wish for his life as He had predicted.
Like Jeremiah though, Ezra surely could have rejected God’s calling (see Jer. 1:6). We can always thwart God’s will for our life if we choose. Does this mean the prophecy would not have been fulfilled and God would be a liar like all the other gods? God’s predictions come to pass 100% of the time, or He isn’t God. Even if we don’t cooperate with God, God can still pull off His predictions. Prophecy is never dependent on but invites the cooperation of God’s people. Isaiah 44:28 says of Cyrus: “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’” If Cyrus refused to participate, the prophecy still could have been fulfilled. Cyrus’ lack of cooperation would not have been seen as God’s failure but Cyrus’. God selected Cyrus before he was born and He called Cyrus to lead. If Cyrus refused, God could have still restored Israel with or without Cyrus’ cooperation during his reign. Thankfully, we cannot thwart God when God must intervene. God elected certain individuals to accomplish His will. Their lack of cooperation is their own responsibility, though I can imagine God’s calling is rather overwhelming to turn down. Cyrus perhaps was taught and grew to love God. What greater privilege than to be used by God for some great purpose.
It is apparent that God had a specific role for certain individuals to play in life. This was true of figures such as Moses (Ex. 3:7-10), Samson (Judges 13:2-5), Saul (I Sam. 9:15-17), David (I Sam. 16:1, 11-13, Jeremiah (Jer.1:4-5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:3-5), and John the Baptist (Luke 1:13-17). But. it does not follow that God’s plan for every human being is just as specific. People who received a divine call to a particular work were the exception in the Bible, rather than the rule. Nor does it follow that even these individuals had no choice but to accept God’s plan for their lives. For example, God warned Ezekiel of the dire consequences of neglecting his responsibilities as a prophet, which indicates that he could have done so (Ezek. 3:16-21). Saul failed to fulfill God’s plan for his life (I Sam. 15:11), as did a number of Israel’s kings. And there were incidents in the lives of some of the others just mentioned that were not in harmony with God’s will (see Num. 20:7-12; 2 Sam. 11). So a divine call does not guarantee the fulfillment of God’s purpose in a person’s life. (Rice, 67) God’s calling is clearly conditioned upon one’s cooperation. One’s refusal does not make God a false prophet.
In the New Testament, it is predicted Peter would deny Christ not once but three times before it actually happened. Was Jesus simply peering into the future and advising what would happen? Is it even possible Peter could have resisted? Jesus’ prediction could have been conditional, though not explicitly stated, serving as a warning to Peter to prepare for upcoming faith challenges. If Jesus were guaranteeing a future event and Peter was destined to fail, why would Jesus pray Peter’s faith would not fail? (Luke 22:32) A teacher can often predict which students will fail. A teacher may even tell a student they will fail their class to challenge them. How though can Jesus say Peter would deny Him exactly three times if He was not peering into an already fixed future? It is possible God planted a thought in the mind of the people who challenged Peter. This did not impose upon others’ freedoms; it only proved that Jesus was who He said He was and unlike other gods can always keep His promises. It is also possible that the gospel writers only shared this story because Peter indeed failed, thus the writers understand Jesus’ prediction was conditional. The readers stood to benefit from hearing about Peter’s failure, as they too would face similar times in the end times predicted by Jesus. (Lk 21) It might not have been significant to share Peter’s story if he had heeded Jesus’ warnings to prepare for challenges to his allegiance. The gospels are not an account of every single word spoken by Jesus in His life.
Judas’ prediction is more difficult to explain because Jesus’ betrayal by a close friend is predicted even in the Old Testament. “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9) In John 6 Jesus predicts Judas’ betrayal earlier on. Like Peter, Jesus’ warning could have been conditional. Early on perhaps Judas became predictable. Who has any doubt had they not be stopped, Hitler or Saddam Hussein would continue to kill if given the opportunity to do so. In order to be faithful to the text, we are not required to believe God forced Judas to do evil. This would contradict what else has been written about God in Scriptures. Richard Rice in God’s Foreknowledge And Man’s Free Will argues: “Judas’ behavior indeed fulfilled the prophecy in question, but it may not have been the only possible way of fulfilling it. For example, Psalm 41:9 seems to apply to Peter’s denial just as effectively as Judas’ betrayal…we can affirm both the validity of prophetic predictions and the integrity of human freedom.” (97) Judas was not predestined before he was born to betray Jesus.
Most Christian commentaries believe the Bible predicts regarding Jesus’ death, before it happened, that His hands and feet would be pierced and His garments sold (Psalm 22:16-18). There could be so many ways a God who created the world out of nothing, who caused a virgin to give birth to His son, who raised people from the dead, could pull off this predictive prophecy without violating the rights of others. One can only conjecture. People who saw Jesus on the cross were in a mocking mood. Matthew 27: 39-43 records:
Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, “I am the Son of God.” In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Why couldn't God suggest in the minds of the soldiers who put Jesus to death unless the soldiers were already thinking this way: “Let’s pierce His hands and feet. Let’s make him suffer longer. Breaking his legs will only hasten his death. I think it is even written their Messiah’s hands and feet will be pierced. Yea, right! Some Messiah he is. Let’s sell his garments. Let’s at least make some money. His stuff is valuable to some of his followers. Some Jews actually think this man is the Messiah predicted a thousand years ago. Let’s show them who is in power. What do they think of their Messiah now?” Were the soldiers’ rights violated? Not really. God just used the soldiers’ choices to put to death the Messiah to accomplish His will. Why can’t God use evil already committed to accomplish His purposes, which is always to our benefit? These soldiers’ rights weren’t violated. Their eternal destiny with God is not determined on this one action.
The future is not totally unpredictable for us humans must less God. Based on people actions earlier in their life even humans can predict with some degree of accuracy how others will conduct themselves in the future. As a father, I can predict how my children might respond in certain situation. I can guarantee you they will grow up to be selfish if not taught otherwise. Our heavenly Father’s knowledge is unlimited. Remember, God is present everywhere, thus his knowledge of the future must be unimaginably extensive. God knew before anyone about September 11th. He even knew when the events were being thought of in the evil minds of those who carried out this tragic acts of evil. Too, He has miraculous powers and can make certain things happen without necessarily denying human freedom, such as Jesus’ birth and resurrection.
Many prophecies can be viewed as conditional, though not explicitly stated so, because of God’s commitment to freedom from the very beginning of Creation. Prophecies that predict downfalls of nations hundreds of year before it happens do not require all of the future be fixed. Prophecies that predict the actions of individuals before they happen do not require God go entirely against peoples’ will. This does not do justice to numerous passages that speak of genuine freedom and God’s interactions with his people based on the choices that make. Do we really want to suggest that somehow God foreordains evil yet He is not the creator of evil? I believe the possibilities of an open future, while not denying God acts intentionally thankfully, is a better answer so not to be a stumbling block for others.
Conclusion
The future does not have to be known for God to be in control. That is why He is God. God is not out of control if He is not controlling. Only humans have to control those around them to keep control. Freedom was one of God initial creative acts. Freedom resulted in sin, but God overcame sin through the Incarnation. God can’t promise us a life without problems. He can’t promise evil will not impact us. He does promise us justice one day for those who commit crimes against others. He does promise us the hope of a life to come without evil. He does promise to walk alongside us to give peace, in the midst of evil, that passes all human understanding. God does promise to use us to change others for the better if we will accept His plan in response to sin resulting from freedom.
Certainly, a predetermined future is not required from a biblical perspective. People will always complain why God doesn’t take pain away in their life, but this is far easier to explain to those seeking God, than to suggest God foreordains evil but then holds humans responsible. We must not suggest an explanation to the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsible that implies God foreordains events such as the Holocaust, domestic violence, or the sexual abuse of children. Evil is present because of the choices we make. God sending His Son was His solution. Jesus is an example of how God will always work to bring about good from the evil choices of others. God will eventually win over evil, often in this world but certainly in the world to come.
Chapter 7
God And Salvation
Is There A Quota On God’s Grace?
God’s Universal Grace
A major stumbling block for many is the biblical argument that God elects certain individuals for eternal life, thus logically sending humans not elected to eternal damnation. If we believe God elects only certain people to salvation, this requires us to believe God foreordains many millions of humans to eternal damnation. This was John Calvin’s argument. It is also defended that humans cursed still have freedom. The argument might be made that since all humans are depraved, none would choose God. It is suggested God is not unjust because all people are depraved and would not choose God without His interference. One can see inherent moral dangers to suggest God is such a Parent. Wouldn’t we accuse earthly parents of immorality if they showed similar favoritism toward their children? As I mentioned regarding the purpose of this book, when there is a debate among qualified scholars concerning the meaning of the biblical text and thus our interpretation regarding the nature of God, we must not choose certain images of God that can drive people to unbelief and despair. Pinnock and Brow defend that God has not set a quota:
They call it sovereign grace, thought it seems only arbitrary and stands in flat contradiction to the gospel, which declares that God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (I Tim 2:4). This tradition imputes to God a character flaw by representing him as arbitrary in the distribution of grace. It would imply that those like St. Paul who weep over the lost are actually more merciful than God is in not weeping (Rom 9:1-3, 10:1). It suggests that whereas we are supposed to love our enemies, God does not always love his. (Unbounded Love, p. 9)
It has been suggested God’s grace is limited to an “elect” few and since the Bible teaches accountability for rejecting God, we have what is referred to as an antinomy. An antinomy is an appearance of contradiction or incompatibility between two apparent truths. The problem is said to be human logic and that some ways about God are not understandable and often mysterious. Yet, it seems self-contradictory to use human language to describe God when in fact admitting that our human language breaks down when applied to God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. We must be careful what we suggest about God as a Parent. God is one who rules in love as opposed to a god who merely loves to rule. From the very beginning God was interested in a relationship with humans where we were free to choose and not force to love Him. God values freedom more than sinless conformity to His will. God was pleased to give us a choice. Giving us a choice does not mean God is not in control. Everything that happens cannot be God’s will since evil exist. God’s intentions were for us to have freedom to oppose His will.
I will defend that God’s grace is universal. Salvation is a gift from God available to all through faith. John 6, Ephesians 1, and Romans 8 and 9 may be the most cited biblical chapters to suggest God preordains certain individuals to salvation, thus excluding others. When first reading these passages it may seem God predetermines individuals to salvation, thus excluding others. But, we will see the chosen are those who choose God’s gift of salvation. God elected Christ to save the world. The gospel has been God’s plan from the beginning. Those who chose faith through Christ will be saved. (I Cor 2:7) We will also look at the abundance of New Testament passages that assume God’s universal grace to all. Some may argue that if salvation is conditioned upon one’s belief, then salvation is by works. Salvation is conditioned upon one’s faith in Christ. (Lk. 7:50; Acts 16:31; Matt. 9:2; Rom. 4:24; 10:9) Faith as a condition does not declare faith as a work (Rom. 3:27; 4:16). Faith rather than the condition of grace is the response to grace God calls for. Receiving grace is a neutral work. Man is free to accept or resist the Gospel. Without God’s grace one cannot be saved, but one must choose whether to accept or refuse God’s grace.
Salvation For All
Our freedom to choose is a pattern seen throughout the Old Testament. (cf. Deut. 30:15-20; Josh. 24:15-15; I Kgs. 18:22) Scripture teaches every person’s responsibility and accountability for their unbelief. Carson in Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility states:
Divine judgment presupposes human responsibility (cf. Gen. 6-8; 18:25; Exod. 23:7; 32:7-12, 26-35; Lev. 10:1; Num. 11:1; 16:3-35; Deut. 32:19-22; Josh. 7; Judg. 2:11; 3:5; 4:1; I Sam. 25:38; 2 Sam 21:1, 2 Kgs. 17:18; 22:15; 23:26; Isa. 14:26; 66:4; Jer. 7:13; Ezek. 5:8; 25-28; Nahum 3:1; Hag. 1:9-11; Zech. 7:12-14; Ps. 75:6; 82:8; 96:10; Eccles. 11:9; 12:14). Human accountability is all the more deeply stressed when the writers insist God is longsuffering and slow to anger (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2. Ps. 86:15; 103:8; Neh. 9:17). [20]
There appears to be no hint or tension in the Old Treatment that many are unable to believe because God has not chosen or “elected” them. The Old Testament speaks only of one’s freedom to believe or reject God’s salvation and their responsibility for that unbelief in the eyes of God. “Two ways are set before the people (cf. Lev. 26:1-45; Deut. 28; 30:15-20; Ps. 1) and the way that brings blessing turns on human repentance and obedience.” (Carson, 19) No such tension exists in the Old Testament that might lead one to believe God’s grace is not universal.
God developed a plan when evil presented itself. Genesis 3:15 says: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Most understand this passage to explain how God planned to overcome evil. He will do it through Eve’s offspring, which we come to understand with further revelation to be God’s Son Jesus. Abraham, born to a Semite (Gen. 11:10-27), was to be used to form a people and eventually a separate nation. There would be a victorious seed over the sniping seed of Satan. The Abrahamic covenant is first given in Genesis 12:1-3. It marks the beginning of both God’s election of the Man by whom He would deliver the whole world if people would believe. It also marks the beginning of Israel’s history. It seems apparent in all of Scripture God had a single plan to accomplish His mission to win all of His creations back, to turns all their hearts from evil.
There can be no doubt that this passage was intended as a pivotal interpretation on the first human crisis …it was plain from the subsequent history of revelation to Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants that a representative child continued to be both God’s visible guarantee for the present and pledge for the future…the NT writers named this single plan or development the “promise” (epangelia). About forty passages may be cited from almost every part of the NT which contain this word “promise” as the quintessence of the OT teaching. Moreover, there is only one promise: it is a single plan. Paul, in the dock, affirmed: And now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God to our fathers; unto which our twelve tribe nation…hopes to attain. (Acts 26:6-7) [Kaiser, Toward An Old Testament Theology, 35, 37, 264]
From the very beginning Israel was the chosen nation which all could potentially be blessed through God by His offering of salvation. God no more chose only the Jewish nation to receive the gift of salvation any more than He chose only certain individuals for salvation. God elected Christ to serve as the Savior for all who would come to him. “The Lord is good to all: He has compassion on all he has made.” (Psalms 145:9) The New Testament is just as abundantly clear that this promise is available to all. New Testament passages that speak of the freedom to accept or reject God’s salvation are overwhelming. God desires the salvation of all conditioned only upon the choice to believe in Him. We will look at the Gospels, Paul letter to the Romans, and a few other passages, which are clear that God’s salvific grace is universal. We will address the main passages in the book of John and Paul’s letter to the Romans and Ephesians that on the surface seem to suggest God’s grace is limited to certain ones He “elects.”
The Gospels Of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
The Gospels are very clear that Jesus came to save all. It is not always clear to whom Christ is presenting salvation such as in Matthew 28:14 when Christ told his followers to make “disciples of all nations,” but there is no clear evidence that salvation is limited to only a select few. The few passages that might possibly be interpreted as such are easily explained in their own context and especially in light of the numerous passages where salvation is offered to all hearers. Chapters 5-7 in Matthews’ Gospel are commonly referred to as Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was obviously speaking to the crowds (7:28). In these passages there is no hint that Jesus’ message of salvation is limited to only certain ones in the crowd. Matthew 5:6 says: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” Matthew 10:32-33 says: "Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever publicly disowns me, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” God will accept whoever acknowledges Christ.
Mark 1:14-15 says: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’” This is the commencement of Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee. Not once did Jesus make it clear or act as if only certain ones were able to repent. Jesus always speaks as if God’s salvation is universal. In fact, Jesus reactions can only defend God’s universal grace to all who will accept His calling. Mark 6:4-6 says: “Jesus said to them, ‘Only in their own towns, among their relatives and in their own homes are prophets without honor.’ He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.” Faith in this instance is most likely in reference to Jesus’ miracles, but Jesus’ miracles were intended in many cases to bring people to belief. (cf. Jn. 4:48) Contextually, lack of faith in Jesus’ miracles was probably what Mark had in mind, but it is likely that Jesus had in mind their lack of belief in who He was as evidenced by His miracles. Not having the faith to believe in His miracles was to lack faith in believing who He was and the message He spoke. And Jesus was amazed at their lack of faith.
Why should Jesus be amazed if they could not possess faith in the first place? It would have been more appropriate for Jesus to have recognized and understood their lack of faith, since God had not chosen them. It is difficult to explain Jesus’ emotions in several instances if we accept the doctrine that God chooses a few, and others are incapable of believing. We must hesitate to claim Jesus knew one thing, and emotionally acted in opposite to that knowledge. This “is not a piece of play-acting, a kind of foreordained drama, or an outward disguise to cover up secret inward movements preordained by God.” (Marshall, Kept By The Power of God, 184)
Similarly, Luke 19:41-45 says: “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, ‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.’” As Christ entered into Jerusalem He wept for those who had refused to recognize what would bring true peace. From passages such as Matthew 13:10-15, we understand truth was hidden due to peoples’ rebellion and not by some arbitrary move on God’s part. Jesus’ emotions are hardly appropriate if God never intended to save those people from the beginning. Instead, it seems He would be rejoicing for those who would be saved by His death. The above text suggests the way to peace was not from the beginning hidden from them – “but now it is hidden from your eyes.” Jesus wept because of their refusal to accept Him rather than their inability to see the way to salvation, which now was hidden from their sight through hardening their own hearts.
Mark 10:13-15 says: “People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’ And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.” Entrance into heaven is presented as a reality to all conditioned on their belief or unbelief. Here, Jesus encourages His disciples to receive the kingdom of God like a child, referring to the nature of a child to take openly and confidently what is given.
One might refer to Mark 10:45 to defend God’s grace being limited. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This passage does not defend grammatically the idea that Christ’s atonement was limited. Hiebert points out that “many points to the contrast between the one life of the Redeemer and the many thereby redeemed. It does not imply a contrast to all but pictures the great multitude affect by His gracious act.” (Mark: A Portrait Of The Savior, 261) Another clear example of the use of the word many in this manner is Paul’s use in Romans 5:15. These two passages do not defend Christ’s atonement being limited to a select few as evidenced by the overwhelming message from Jesus for all to draw to Him.
Finally, Matthew 11: 25-30 is a passage some might refer to defend a doctrine of election, where salvation is not available to all.
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
The invitation is not to the Jew only but to anyone (v.27), to “all who are weary and heavy-laden” (v 28). The contrast is not between those chosen and those not chosen or between those educated and those uneducated but between those who consider themselves to be wise and those who recognize their limitation and seek God’s insight and not their own. The Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus spoke on salvation, clearly indicate salvation is available to all people. Christ gives no indication that His message of repentance is available only for an elect few. He spoke as if all are capable of accepting or denying His message of salvation “To suggest that the offer of the Gospel which is couched in universalistic terms in the New Testament is directly merely to a hidden and limit group among its hearers is to impose a meaning upon the test which can claim nothing in its support.” (Marshall, 196)
Gospel of John
John in his Gospel expresses Christ as Savior of the world (3:17), of all people (1:7; 5:23; 12:32). Many would agree one of John’s purposes for writing his gospel was so that through the miraculous signs of Christ “you (readers) may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (20:31) If Christ died for those chosen by God, then it must be said these signs were recorded so that those chosen may believe. But, the Gospel of John as a whole does not defend the notion that Christ came for certain ones. John frequently records Jesus speaking in universal terms regarding eternal life.
Christ said to Nicodemus (3:14-18):
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Christ said to the Samaritan woman at the well (4:13-14):
Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but those who drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Christ said in response to those Jews persecuting him (5:24):
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
Christ said in response to the disbelieving Jews (8:24,51):
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins…Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.
Christ said to Martha (11:25-26):
I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?
Christ said to Philip and Andrew (12:25-26):
Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
Christ said to the crowd (12:36, 46):
Put your trust in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light. When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them…I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
Jesus spoke as if all may believe in Him for eternal life. Christ offered Himself to all conditioned on the fact they would believe. We will look at one passage in particular that some have suggested teaches salvation is only for the “chosen, ” which would be odd in light of the above universal passages. It is suggested words such as “world” are used in John in a restricted sense, where “worlds” refers to people out of every tribe and nation, but not all people of all tribes and nations. It has been suggested Christ must offer Himself to all people to show the wicked their sin, the elect their salvation. Often the context will indicate whether to restrict such words as “all, world, everyone, everything.” This occurs numerous places in John (3:26; 4:25, 29, 39; 4:45; 11:48; 14:26; 15:15). There are no contextual indicators to cause us to think the passages cited above, which defend God’s salvific will for all, are not referring to everyone.
The sixth chapter of John is perhaps the most cited passage in John to suggested salvation is not universal, thus we will look at these passage in detail. It has been suggested in verses 37, 39, and 44 that God only draws a select few toward Christ in order to believe.
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has learn the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47Very truly I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which people may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
The crowd misunderstood Jesus’ miraculous sign in the feeding of the five thousand (6:14,15). The people were seeking from Christ something other than what He was offering. The bread of which Jesus spoke of is not like manna, which can be physically touched and eaten. Instead, Jesus is offering Himself as the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51). Jesus’ words should be regarded as an appeal than some abstract statement, since many turned back and no longer followed Him (6:66). For one to respond to this appeal was utterly impossible without the drawing power of God’s spirit. Unfortunately, without God’s influence, one remains contentedly in their sins (6:37, 44, 65; cf. 16:8). Who does God draw to Himself? This is the crux of the argument as to whether God’s salvation is available to all people conditioned upon their belief. John’s Gospel as a whole clearly supports God’s universal appeal to all.
Christ in the Gospel of John appealed to at least seven different groups of people as if all were capable of believing in Him. In John 6 Christ appeals to people to believe in Him for eternal life (6:35, 37b, 40, 47), which make little sense unless all were capable of such belief. But, the fact is that many saw Him and still did not believe (6:36), and they turned back and no longer followed Him (6:66). It is not as if these people were not capable of believing, but they rejected the evidence before them. John emphasizes no one comes to the Father without Him giving them the ability to do so, but the context indicates eternal life is based on coming and believing (6:35). John 12:32 suggest God’s drawing power is extended to all. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Some worry to suggest God’s drawing power fails, since not all choose a relationship with God. This fails to acknowledge that God does not demand obedience; He always gives us the choice. God’s power is used to draw people to believe, for without it, we will continue in our sins. No one comes unless the Father has enabled them (6:65), but God does not force Himself on all. God’s sovereignty is best defined from a biblical viewpoint when we recognize His sovereignty and control is not weakened because we choose to oppose His will. In fact, God is more astounding because He does not force Himself on others when He could. What an amazing God to tolerate sin when He is perfect. God’s will was never to force people into belief. Only through His mercy extended to all of us may we escape deserved judgment for our actions. Scripture teaches that an individual does not believe on their own. Unbelief is not because of some act of God. God’s salvation is extended to all people. Marshall is surely correct in saying:
The purpose of the predestinarian language in John is not to express the exclusion of certain men from salvation because they were not chosen by the Father…but to emphasize that from start to finish eternal life is the gift of God and does not lie under the control of men. A person who tries to gain eternal life on his own terms will find himself unable to come to Jesus because it has not been granted to him by the Father (Jn. 6:65): he has in fact been resisting the leading of the Father. (179)
Paul’s Letter To the Romans
Who may obtain faith? Perhaps no other letter of Paul’s can best answer this question than Romans. Paul’s emphasis in Romans is upon faith, that the gospel is the “power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16; cf.3:22) Several passages declare faith is available to all who believe (Rom. 1:16; 2:7-11; 3:22-24). Romans 10:9-13 says: “That if you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.’ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’”
Romans 8:28-30 is often cited to suggest God’s election is of a few. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Does election precede or follow foreknowledge? Osborne notes the similarities between Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:3-12 (see below):
In both passages Paul is speaking to believers and the ‘we you’ terminology in both is paralleled by the election itself, which is not to eternal life but to ‘holy and blameless’ lives (v.4), to sonship (v.5, note the parallel to ‘conformed to the image of the son,’ Rom. 8:29), and to living ‘for the praise of his glory’ (v.12). While redemption and forgiveness are a central part of this passage (v.7), the election itself looks at believers only and does not consider election out of belief, i.e., election here looks at the benefits of the salvation act, not at the act itself. (Osborne, Grace Unlimited, 180)
Ephesians 1: 3-14 says:
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment--to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth through Christ. 11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.
Verse 4 says God chose believers before they believed (i.e. before the creation of the world). Yet, one can see in verse 5 God’s predestination act is that of choosing Christ to serve as the Savior of those who would accept His death for their own because of sin. God predestinates those who choose to believe in Christ. Similarly, Romans 8:29 says those God foreknew were those conforming to the likeness of His son. In verse 11 Paul repeats again we are chosen through Christ. On what basis is one chosen through Christ? “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”(v 13) I Peter 1:18-21 confirms the object of God’s election is Christ to save all those who believe:
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.
Nothing is said which would deny that certain people heard the gospel and did not believe. Neither is it suggested that such people do not believe because they were not predestined to believe. All that we are told is that God foreordains those who believe in Jesus to become holy and to be His children. Ephesians 1:13 suggest one’s belief in Christ is a present reality, not something that has been reached in eternity past. Yet, the emphasis in Romans 8:28-30 and Romans 9-11 (see below) is not on human freedom, but God’s sovereignty as evidenced by His mercy toward those who cannot achieve their own salvation. When sin entered and destroyed the world, God elected to save through Christ any that would believe. Rice’s comment is a fair summary based on what we understand about God’s nature.
The plan of salvation thus represents an aspect of God’s original, comprehensive preparation for human life. God formulated this plan in view of the possibility of sin. He implemented it in response to the actuality of sin. The original formulation of the plan from “the foundation of the world” (I Peter 1:20) does not necessarily imply that the intrusion of sin in human affairs was a foregone conclusion. It only means that God had perfectly prepared for every possible development, including this most unfortunate one. (God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will, 64)
Romans 9
Entire books have been written on Chapters 9-11 in Paul’s letter to the Romans. The subtitle of Romans 9 in the TNIV version is “God’s Sovereign Choice.” As in the above Ephesians passage, similar themes exist - God’s election of Christ for the salvation of those who choose to believe. God’s election is not individuals for salvation at the exclusion of others. The totality of Scriptures suggests grace is universal not limited. Election in the Old Testament did not mean one was unable to reject God. Neither does God’s election of Israel exclude others from being able to believe in God for salvation.
It is one of the titles applied to the people of God and indicates that their existence as His people, their reception of His salvation, and their enrollment in His service all rest upon His prior choice of them. Yet, this choice by God is not independent of the willingness of the individual to receive it, nor is its nature such that a man cannot renounce it. H. H. Rowley concludes that for the Church, as the heir of Israel’s election, her elect is conditioned upon her desire to retain it. (Marshall, 71)
In Romans 9 it seems Paul is compelled to defend God’s faithfulness to His word (9:6) because of Israel’s widespread unbelief and disobedience. God’s purposes “in election” are called into question (v. 11). Paul’s defense is necessitated perhaps by the fact that Romans 1-8, the hope of the Christian, is entirely dependent on God’s faithfulness to his word (cf. Rom. 8:28,30).
14What then we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “ I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for disposal of refuse? 22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.
Paul says in Romans 9:2-3: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race.” Paul emotions for his brother and sisters who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah seem nonsensical if He understands God preordained the salvation of only certain one of his “brothers and sisters.” It has been argued Paul understood the concept of God’s election of some, and his reply in verses 19-21 challenged those who objected, what right they had to question the ways of God. If this interpretation were correct, would not Paul’s thoughts of great sorrow, anguish, and wanting to be cursed for his brothers and sisters be inappropriate, since Paul understood God has chosen in advance who would be saved? For Paul to be aware of such a doctrine and still express himself before God as he does is to be guilty of what he accuses the objector in verse 20. Paul’s emotional state was appropriate because he, as Christ did, knew nothing of God’s election purposely excluding some from salvation.
Romans 9-11 confirms God’s worldwide design for salvation, first to the Jew then to the Gentile (cf. Rom. 1:16). The Jews did not understand or perhaps want to accept this. God’s election in this case is not those for individual salvation. From the beginning (Genesis 12:1-3) we see a clear reference to a divine plan by which Abraham is chosen to be God’s instrument to reach all nations of the earth – the promise of salvation conditioned upon faith. God has elected Israel for the purpose of saving all. God’s purpose in election, the opportunity for salvation through Christ, will be accomplished. It does not depend on people’s works but God’s grace and mercy. God’s purpose in election is accomplished through the nation of Israel as well as the person of Abraham. God’s elective purpose is not for the salvation of certain “elect” individuals, thus, the condemnation of those not chosen.
One obtains such salvation through faith, not through moral stature or biological potential as in Jacob and Esau’s cases. Paul declares in Romans 9:30-32 that Israel did not obtain God’s righteousness “because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.” Faith is necessary, but in Scripture the act of belief is never described as a “work” in order to earn their salvation. God elected Israel for the purpose of saving all. God’s elective purpose is concerned with the ultimate destiny of all people. Children of the promise, Abraham’s children, are not so much chosen but rather included by choosing to follow in Abraham’s footsteps by believing in the promise of God (cf. Rom. 4:12-16).
Is God unjust to have chosen one sibling over another or Israel rather than another nation to accomplish His Promise? Paul’s reference to Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:15 does not defend the idea that God does not have mercy and compassion on certain people. Such a definition of God’s sovereignty does not fit the context here. God’s love for Israel is not being contrasted against his lack of “mercy and compassion” to another nation. Rather, Paul is defending God’s justness despite His continual mercy shown to a disloyal, disobedient Israel. Could Paul be responding to a Gentile objector as to why God continued to extend His mercy to a disobedient Israel nation? Paul insists on the freedom of God’s mercy apart from human merit. If God’s purpose in election depended on our effort (i.e. Israel’s obedience), His plan would have failed. Not even Pharaoh could stand in His way. Must we conclude though that God in accomplishing His plan hardens hearts arbitrarily as in Pharaoh’s case?
The example of Pharaoh has been used to teach God hardens hearts as He pleases, regardless of one’s actions. “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” fails to take into account the explanatory phrase occurring often in the context, “And Pharaoh hardened his heart” (cf. Ex 7:13, 14, 22; 8:11, 15, 28; 9:7, 34, 35; 13:5). In the midst of Pharaoh’s rebellion, God harden his heart. Paul emphasizes that neither Pharaoh’s actions or Israel apostasy can keep God from fulfilling His promise. Rebellion against God can be used to accomplish that which God has purposed, the salvation of all who chose to believe. It is not as if God by any positive efficiency hardens any man’s heart. Greene suggests the phrase “but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” should be explained in light of the explanatory phase occurring often in the context, “And Pharaoh hardened his heart.”
Nor may it be said that there is as much reason why this phrase should be interpreted by the other and objectionable one. The latter is inconsistent with the Old Testament’s characteristic representation of God. It should, therefore, as has been already implied, be interpreted by the clearly parallel and explanatory phrase that would remove the inconsistency. Moreover, the idiom of the language shows, that, independent of the question of consistency, the interpretation just suggested is the one required. According to the Hebrew idiom a positive statement is often used as equivalent to the mere negation of its opposite. Thus in the Hebraistic Greek of the New Testament hate in Romans 9:13 (‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated’) does not mean what we mean by hate, but only the absence of that special love which God feels for those whom, out of his general love for all sinners, he has chosen to be his adopted sons. (Classical Evangelical Essays In Old Testament Interpretation, 209,210)
God’s hardening is not arbitrary and mechanical, regardless of one’s actions. God does not act in a way in which one cannot resist without the opportunity to change. There is no indication that those who wish to be obedient to God cannot do so, except perhaps if they have been persistent in disobedience and unbelief. There is a self-hardening in evil, but God will never turn His back if repentant. People are not forced into an unbelief they do not want.
It is suggested that verses 19-21 express Paul’s attempted to defend God’s sovereign discrimination concerning the salvation of individuals at the exclusion of others. This would contradict Paul’s emotional state previously mentioned and what Paul has written elsewhere in his letter to the Romans. “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”(Rom. 10:13; cf. Rom. 1:16, 3:22) Paul does insist it is God’s right to use “some pottery for noble purposes and some for disposal of refuse” in His call both to Jews and Gentiles. It is God right to use the nation of Israel in a special way to be a blessing to all nations. Thank God evil acts such as Pharaoh and the unbelief of Israel cannot thwart His mission. God’s tolerance of such evil does not cause Him to be unjust. But no one is born already condemned to eternal damnation. Paul is not defending God’s sovereign discrimination concerning the salvation of individuals at the exclusion of others. From Paul’s viewpoint God’s election includes others (i.e. Gentiles).
But, if God’s Plan cannot be thwarted and dependent on Him than humans, “then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" God’s wrath has always been conditioned upon one’s disobedience. God exercises His wrath with patience, wishing to give us an opportunity to repent. Paul would insist though “God is just” despite His use of wrath for His purposes. The objector may be rebuked for assuming to have the right to challenge the decisions of God, to assume God cannot be merciful and longsuffering. Israel herself is the cause of her stumbling, not some foreordained plan of God. God’s plan of salvation through Abraham’s seed shall be carried out because of God’s mercy rather than one’s effort, but not at the expense of one’s choice to accept or deny Christ. Paul says in the same paragraph: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”(Rom. 10:4) God elected individuals and nations for tasks necessary so that the truth about God could be brought to all people, so people could decide to believe in Christ or not.
It seems the most cited passages in Scripture to defend the salvation of certain people and the damnation of other people being preordained can easily be interpreted based on free will and one’s belief or lack of belief in who Christ was. God indeed has a plan beforehand (foreknowledge) should man and woman choose to sin. This plan was not to save some and not others through the death and resurrection of His Son. God’s plan, if humans were to choose to sin, was to send His Son as a Savior from ourselves. Jesus’ death clears indicates God could not be accused of overlooking sin, something we parents too often do with our children, which only harms them and those they come in contact with.
The Greek New Testament speaks of God as “foreknowing” three times (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Pet. 1:20, as having “foreknowledge” two times (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2), and as “predestining” or “deciding beforehand” four times (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5). In each instance, the word refers to some aspect of salvation history as the fulfillment of a preexistent plan. And the use of such expressions as “before the foundation of the world” (I Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:4), and “before the ages” (I Cor. 2:7) indicates that the plan existed as early as Creation. (Marshall, 83)
Conclusion
II Cor. 5: 15 says: “And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” I John 4:14-15 says: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.” Titus 2: 11 says: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all people.” Finally, I Timothy 2: 3-6, which perhaps is the most cited biblical passage to explain Jesus came to save all who desire to be saved, is clear regarding the motive of God and the actions of Jesus.
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. (see I Tim. 4:9)
It is abundantly clear that God’s grace is available to all. This view of salvation and the Scripture’s defense of human freedom also do more justice to the theme of apostasy in the Bible as well (Heb 6:4-6, I Tim. 1:19). Salvation is a choice one makes and one also chooses whether to continue in the faith or not. God will never force Himself on another to love Him. God will attempt to love you to His way, and we do not have to fear losing our salvation unless we chose to disown Him completely. One can read I.H. Marshall’s Kept By The Power for a complete treatment of apostasy (keeping the faith). These verses do not have to be explained away when once accepts God is the Savior of all people by faith.
Not all relevant biblical passages have been covered, but from the passages we have cited the evidence hardly favors the view that God’s grace is available only to a limited group of people. Also, such a statement about God’s character, unless indisputable from the biblical test, is suspect. Acts 13:48 and its surrounding context provides a final example. It has been suggested this passage teaches the viewpoint that divine grace is given only to a limited, specific group of people. “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” In light of the totality of Scriptures, appointed cannot mean some were chosen and others denied access to God. Certainly, divine initiation rather than human choice is the thrust of this passage. But, clearly human choice and responsibility is involved as we see in verse 46: “Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: ‘We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.’” This passage, or any other biblical passage, is not suggesting predestination in the sense that some are chosen for salvation and others for damnation. People are rejected based on their own rejection of God’s word, not God’s rejection of them. God through the Holy Spirit enables all to repent. Nothing in Scriptures says God keeps any person from receiving his salvation.
Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earn, but it must be received. The Calvinistic position logically leads us to believe that God exercises His mercy and grace arbitrarily when it comes to salvation. One might argue what right do we have to question such an act on God’s part? “Any attempted to criticize this position is regarded as the application of human standards to God and as a contradiction of what God is actually said to have done in Scripture.” (Marshall, 256) But the criticism must be made. We as Christians would admonish one another in Christ, on the grounds of scriptural teaching, if mercy was exercised in such an arbitrary fashion. This being the case, how much more urgent it is not to suggest such action by God. A theology, which teaches that God loves and desires to save all sinners, is the most biblical one.
So then, the interpretation which declares that God chooses beforehand those who are to believe in Jesus Christ, thus passing over the rest of humankind, must be rejected. Salvation is a gift from God available to all through faith in Christ. Our God extends His grace to us all, though we are all undeserving. Only God is capable of such profound love. To Him we owe our lives. Marshall surely is right in rejecting the belief, as unbiblical, that God’s grace is limited as opposed to universal:
Above all, this view completely fails to do justice to the teaching of the Bible in which God’s will for the salvation of all mankind is expressed…And to suggest that the offer of the Gospel which is couched in universalistic terms in the New Testament is directly merely to a hidden and limited group among its hearers is to impose a meaning upon the text which can claim nothing in its support.
Accordingly, the view that God has predestinated a limited number of men to salvation, which the result that the remainder have no opportunity of responding to the Gospel, is not to be deduced from the biblical teaching…Whenever men are saved from their sins it is because God has taken the initiative. Salvation is entirely by His grace; it comes to men only through the call of God in the Gospel and their consequent response. But this call does not always rouse faith in the hearer, for many who hear reject the message. This, however, does not justify us in postulating two kinds of divine call, one which has no result because God has not willed it to have a result, and another ‘effectual’ call which irresistibly converts the hearer. The New Testament leaves the impression that rejection of the divine call is due to human sin, and is content to leave the matter there as part of the mystery of iniquity. Nor does it discuss why the call comes to some men and nations and not to others. We must rule out the view that God foreordains a certain number of elect to salvation with its logical consequence that they are bound to preserve to the end and attain final salvation. (Marshall, 196-197)
Chapter 8
God And Glorification
Is God Obsessed With His Own Pleasure?
Does the Bible say we are made only for God’s pleasure? Did God create us solely for His glory? Is our sole purpose in life to serve and glorify God? Does the Bible say God’s nature is self-glorification? God’s glory is a major theme from the Old Testament through the New Testament. God says in Isaiah 48:11: “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.” I Corinthians 10:31 says: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” For those who don’t know God well, this aspect of God’s nature can be confusing. After all, in our culture we have words for those who seek glory only for their own benefit - self-centered, self-absorbed, self-seeking, or egotistical. We will seek to understand better what is meant in the above passages that say that God will not yield his glory to anyone, that whatever we do, we should do it all for the glory of God.
God And Glorification
The word “glory” is not always easy to define. Most can agree in the Bible God’s glory certainly refers to God’s greatness, His holiness. Because of who God is and what He stands for, we should glorify God by honoring Him, praising Him, pleasing Him. We would do the same for an earthly parent who deserved such honor. Most can agree God’s glorification is a common theme in Scripture. The question is what is God’s purpose in seeking His own glory? In an article The Goal of God's Love May Not Be What You Think It Is Piper says:
Both Old and New Testament tell us that God's loving us is a means to our glorifying him. "Christ became a servant ... in order that the nations might glorify God for His mercy” (Romans 15:8-9). God has been merciful to us so that we would magnify him. We see it again in the words, "In love [God] destined us to adoption ... to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Ephesians 1:4-6). In other words, the goal of God's loving us is that we might praise him. One more illustration from Psalm 86:12-13: "I will glorify Your name forever. For Your lovingkindness toward me is great.” God's love is the ground. His glory is the goal.
This is shocking. The love of God is not God's making much of us, but God's saving us from self-centeredness so that we can enjoy making much of him forever. And our love to others is not our making much of them, but helping them to find satisfaction in making much of God. True love aims at satisfying people in the glory of God. Any love that terminates on man is eventually destructive. It does not lead people to the only lasting joy, namely, God. Love must be God-centered, or it is not the true love; it leaves people without their final hope of joy. ()
Piper in his book Desiring God says his book’s aims is to persuade you that:
The chief end of man is to glorify God
By
Enjoying him forever
If you know God as I have my whole life, you understand the importance of honoring God in all we do. Without God’s influence I am not even close to the man I strive to be. But, I believe the Scriptures speak of God’s glorification in the context of a relationship between the Creator and created. God created humans to enjoy a relationship together, not just to glorify Him. In attempting to understand biblical passages that refer to God’s glory or self-glorification, I suggest the following can be defended from the Bible and cause less confusion about God’s nature:
Men and women should seek to glorify God
So
Creator and creation may best enjoy life together forever
Created Both For God’s Pleasure And Mutual Intimacy
One writer says “God did not need to create you, but he chose to create you for his own enjoyment. You exist for his benefit, his glory, his purpose, and his delight.” This may only tell half the story. Does the Bible say worship is just for God’s benefit or for the benefit of humans as well? Is our goal to bring pleasure only to God or is the chief end of God to bring pleasure to man as well? One cannot help but sense in the account of the beginning of the relationship between God and man, mutual intimacy seemed to be the pursuit.
Genesis 1:26 inform humans were made in God’s image. Ephesians 4: 24 explains: “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” Though humans are certainly not God, God’s motive does not appear to be to create a lesser being just for service. God had angels who worshiped Him, who sang His praises. God surely didn’t need just more servants or better service. Humans are unique from all other creations. Only humans are created in God’s image. God surely has given us a spirit to enjoy a meaningful relationship with his Creator. It is not a stretch to suggest people were not created just for God’s pleasure but created as well to enjoy God. God thought to create a man and a woman in His image, with a free will, so that they all might enjoy one another. No doubt God was pleased with all his creation. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Gen 1:31a)
We must not add more details than given, but evidently God and the first couple enjoyed one another. Perhaps the most wonderful thing that took place in Eden, before sin, was that God would come to the garden so that He might talk with the man and woman He had created in His own image (See Gen. 3:8). Why would God visit? Surely, God’s intention was that He and humans might fellowship together, talk together, laugh together, and spend eternity together in the company of one another. God created so humans and He might enjoy one another’s company and relationship forever. Did God create us for intimacy, friendship? Has God’s desire been since Adam and Eve disobeyed to restore intimacy? Was one of the reasons God sent His Son Jesus to restore intimacy, the friendship desired by Him?
Though certainly not depicted in ever other verse in the Bible, God and His Son did not shy away from calling humans friends, as if such a concept is sacrilegious. Abraham and Moses are called God’s friend, and Jesus called the disciples His friends. Were we created to be God’s friend? James 2:23 says: “And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God's friend.” (cf. 2 Chron. 20:7, Isa. 41:8) Ex 33:11a says: “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.” Finally, in John 15: 14-15 Jesus said to his disciples: “You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” Can we surmise that our friendship begins here on earth and continues in heaven?
God is our Creator, Redeemer, Master, Judge, Savior, and Friend. God desires to be our friend. In the beginning Adam and Eve surely delighted in God and He delighted in them. Certainly Abraham and Moses were significant figures in God’s plan for the world, but their relationship with God was certainly a model we can all pursue. I have often said I long to hear one day, when I see God, the words spoken to King David “well done my good and faithful servant.” I too would welcome, though perhaps scared to hear due to my unworthiness, “welcome my friend.” We are created to please God. It seems also likely God created us so He might please us. The Bible is the story of God’s love for humanity. Like any parent, God desires so much for His children to experience His blessings intended for them. We will see below in the same way Israel is not created just for God’s pleasure. The nation of Israel was created so all nations might be pleased and blessed by God and enjoy a relationship with Him.
God’s Purpose For Israel All Inclusive
There is no doubt Israel was created to glorify God. Isaiah 43:1, 7 and numerous other passages speak to this theme: “But now, this is what the LORD says - he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you, I have summoned you by name; you are mine…everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” The Old Testament though speaks often why Israel was created to glorify God. Israel was not created solely for God’s satisfaction. Israel was created and chosen as a nation to be a blessing for all. No doubt Israel was special to God, but they were chosen so that all nations might come to know God (Ps. 96:3-9; Zech. 2:5-11). The Bible speaks of God’s grand scheme after evil entered the world.
God developed a plan when evil presented itself. Genesis 3:15 says: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” Most understand this passage to explain how God planned to overcome evil. He will do it through Eve’s offspring, which we come to understand with further revelation to be God’s Son Jesus. Abraham, born to a Semite (Gen. 11:10-27), was to be used to form a people and eventually a separate nation. There would be a victorious seed over the sniping seed of Satan. The Abrahamic covenant is first given in Genesis 12:1-3. It marks the beginning of both God’s election of the man Abraham by whom He would deliver the whole world if men would believe. This was also the beginning of Israel’s history as the chosen nation for God magnificent plan for all nations. It seems apparent in all of Scripture God had a single plan to accomplish His mission to win His creations back, to turns their hearts from evil. God desperately desires the original relationship He intended with us. Kaiser writes on Genesis 3:
There can be no doubt that this passage was intended as a pivotal interpretation on the first human crisis …it was plain from the subsequent history of revelation to Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants that a representative child continued to be both God’s visible guarantee for the present and pledge for the future…the NT writers named this single plan or development the “promise” (epangelia). About forty passages may be cited from almost every part of the NT which contain this word “promise” as the quintessence of the OT teaching. Moreover, there is only one promise: it is a single plan. Paul, in the dock, affirmed: And now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God to our fathers; unto which our twelve tribe nation…hopes to attain. (Acts 26:6-7)[Toward An Old Testament Theology, 35, 37, 264]
From the very beginning Israel was the chosen nation which all could potentially be blessed through God by His offering of salvation. God no more chose only the Jewish nation to receive the gift of salvation any more than He chose only certain individuals for salvation. God elected Christ to serve as the Savior for all who would come to him. “The Lord is good to all: he has compassion on all he has made.” (Ps. 145:9) God’s purpose with Israel in bringing glory to Himself was so that the true God be revealed to all nations, so to have the blessing of salvation and thus true freedom and intimacy found only in a relationship with God.
God showed unbelievable mercy toward Israel because to do so was to show mercy toward all nations. God’s motive in seeking glory appears to be because of His love for all people. Humans are to glorify God because to do so can lead to our freedom. God’s purpose in delivering the Israelites from Egypt was because they represented God to all nations against all other false gods. Several passages speak to this pilgrimage and God seeking His glory. Ezekiel 20:9 says “But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations they lived among and in whose sight I had revealed myself to the Israelites by bringing them out of Egypt.” Psalms 106:8 says: “Yet he saved them for his name's sake, to make his mighty power known.” Exodus 14:4,18 says “But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD… The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.” All of these passages refer to Israel’s time in history in an attempt to move out from the bondage of Egypt. Israel was protected and shown extraordinary mercy as they were elected as the vessel where all might come to understand who God is.
The context in all the above passages reveals that God is competing against false idols. Thank God He is jealous against false idols. (Deut.32:16-21) God knows false idols don’t really exist yet people believed they did. Should God just stand by while others pursue such idols in vain, or should He challenge people to follow the only true God, which is for their benefit? Most people reading this book realize statues aren’t real gods. The Israelites though obviously didn’t. “At Horeb they made a calf and worshiped an idol cast from metal. They exchanged their Glory for an image of a bull, which eats grass.” (Ps. 106:19-20) Isaiah 48:11 says: “I will not yield my glory to another.” Thank God for this. God will not yield or give into others who suggest false idols are real.
You are my witnesses, “declares the LORD,” and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses, “declares the LORD,” that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it? (Isaiah 48:10-13)
False Idols
Why must God insist on Himself only and all He represents? Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was. Matthew 22:36-40 says: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Jesus obviously was not saying the other commandments or everything else He spoke about in His ministry was unimportant. We can see though everything hinges on loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind. To give glory and honor to God and you will honor your father and mother, you will not murder, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will not give false testimony against your neighbor, you will not covet (See Ex. 20).
For the longest time in my relationship with God, I was confused by the first few of the Ten Commandments. They seem to emphasize the same thing over and over and over. Why was God so jealous or obsessed about idol worship? (Ex. 20: 3-6) says:
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
I now realize God’s emphatic purpose for commanding Israel to not serve other idols. We knew nothing about God in the beginning of history. Israel was the nation chosen to introduce God. God knew to serve other gods is to pursue something that doesn’t exist. God did not want there to be any confusion in the beginning. Today, readers may not worship false statues but we see the dangers to individuals and families for generations when we worship false gods (materialism, selfishness). They do not bring happiness. God is jealous for our own good health. Similarly, parents in the beginning, when telling their children about sex, advise them to not sleep with everyone. I strongly encourage God’s radical advice to pursue sexual intimacy with only one partner. Am I a killjoy as a parent? Just the opposite! I am only trying to spare my children of much grief and the pursuit of unhappiness, though they may not see it as they indulge initially.
Thank God He Seeks His Own Glory
God’s ultimate allegiance must be to Himself. He is all that is good, the only one. Piper is right when he says since God is unique as the most glorious of all beings and totally self-sufficient, He must be for Himself if He is to be for us. If God were to abandon the goal of His own self-exaltation, we would be the losers. His aim to bring praise to Himself, and His aim to bring pleasure to His people, are one in the same. God is the one Being in the entire universe for whom self-centeredness, or the pursuit of his own glory, is the ultimately loving act.
God is concerned with our loving Him so others might be loved. God’s glory is not purely self-infatuation. To glorify God is to love oneself and others. To glorify God is to glorify what is right and good according to God’s standards, and not man’s every changing, frequently, selfish standards. Romans 15:7 says “accept others as Christ and glorify God.” We should purposeful become more like Christ. I can think of worse role models. Becoming more like Christ allows greater discernment between right and wrong (see Philip. 1:11), greater generosity with others (cf. I Peter 4:10). I can think of worse things than serving God in all you do. Isaiah 48:17 says: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who direct you in the way you should go.” If we argue we should not glorify God in all we do, we must defend that God is wrong and all His ways are not just. With God it is all or nothing. To argue some ways are just and not others is to deny God is God. I would argue that the opposite of glorifying God is to sin.
It is different when we humans seek glorification as opposed to when God seeks self-glorification. Even though I am not perfect, my children would be wise to honor me in all they do. My children would be wise to please me when it comes to what they put in their body, how they treat others. I want them to follow the ways I suggest rather than the ways of the world, because I have their best interests at heart. I must be self-centered in this way if my love is unselfish. If I were perfect and never selfish, their pursuit would never be in vain and always in their best interest. Since I am far from perfect, I warn my children that God’s standards are the ultimate goal. When one is perfect, self-glorification is a worthy command. Thank God He advise His glorification throughout the Bible.
Can you imagine a world that glorified God in all they did? There would be no evil in the world. There would be no selfishness in the world. There would be no abuse or hunger caused by evil dictators. There would be no murder. There would be no violence in our schools. There would be no child sexual or physical abuse. There would be no parents living out their dreams through their children. There would be no bigotry based on the color of your skin or the gender you were born. There would be no domestic violence. There would be no adultery. There would be no taking out anger on others. There would be no road rage. There would be no parking in handicap parking by those not truly handicapped. There would be no abuse of authority. There would be no gossip behinds one’s back. There would be no envy. There would be no fear of letting children walk to the store, no locking of cars and houses for safety and theft reasons.
When one gets to know God and establishes a personal relationship with Him, they will understand why their passion must be to glorify God. This is why the biblical writers time and time again encouraged their writers to glorify God with every ounce of passion they had. Paul says in Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” Paul was not commanded by God to write these words. These words flowed from Paul’s lips. Paul had just spoken about the wisdom and mercy of God by electing Israel to save the world. Paul was speaking from His heart. The psalmist felt the same way as Paul, “Because your love is better than life, my lips will glorify you” (Ps. 63:3) The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told (Luke 2:20). The shepherds wanted to glorify God. It was a natural expression after realizing a God in heaven would bother to become like man through His Son, so He might love them. Once you get to know God, you will want to give Him all the glory. You will understand.
God Is Not Possessive With His Glory
What was God’s purpose in creation? I have suggested God created humans for mutual intimacy, for friendship. We cannot be God but we can aspire to be like God. There can only be one God. He is the Creator not the created. In Romans 3:23 we read we fell short of God’s original intentions: "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” Adam and Eve before they sinned possess glory in the garden, because they were created perfectly by God, but then lost it. We are created in God’s image, though certainly we are not God. We can’t possess the same glory God does but we are God’s glorious creations. The Bible speaks of God’s plan to enable us to gain back the glory God intended for us. God's purpose for humans was glory, but sin thwarted that purpose by causing us to miss God's glory. The result of sin is that we forfeit God's glory: the result of redemption is that we are qualified again for glory. The Divine purpose in creation and redemption was that God would have many children to share His glory. He wanted us, and sought satisfaction through us, as any parent does when desiring to have children. Children do not complete or make parents whole any more than humans make God whole or complete. Children though can receive and provide much pleasure to those Who/who brought them into the world.
Lucifer met his demise when attempted to be God or equal to God (cf. Isa. 14-12-15). Any human being who tries to be God is in for a rude awakening. But, God has great plans for us, even though we by sinning spoiled His original designs. Jesus says in John 17:22 after speaking on fulfilling his mission with his disciples and then turning his attentions to all who believe: “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.” “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:18) God’s plan from the beginning:
Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us… And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8: 17-18,30)
We have the hope of future glory. Paul says current sufferings don’t compare to our future glory. “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all (II Cor. 4:17; cf. Col 1:27; Eph 1:18; II Tim. 2:10; See Philip 3:21 I Peter 5:1,4).” “He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Tim. 2:14) God is not possessive of His glory. God created us to be partakers of His Glory. We cannot be God, but we can strive to be like God as we originally were created in His image (Gen. 1:27).
Conclusion
God is not obsessed with His glory for just His own benefit. God desires we glorify Him so that we can share in the many blessings resulting from such actions. What parent doesn’t advise their child to honor them in all they do when they have their best interest in mind? I don’t tell my children to glorify me because I am aware of my humanness. I do advise them to honor me if they discern my advice is not opposed to God’s truth. God is the only parent in possession of absolute truth. What God proclaims is not some guess about what is the right thing to do. Parents are not perfect beings. Sometimes parents get their own ambitions mixed up in what is best for their children, so children must be discerning. God is a totally selfless being. God only is capable of perfect, unconditional love.
God created us for mutual intimacy. He didn’t need us just for service or praise. He wanted to share His wonderful creation with others. He created us to enjoy mutual intimacy forever. Sin came into play though. God will not force His love on others. Parents know if a child is made to love you this is not the same if they choose to love you. Perhaps this is why the love between a teenager and parent can be even more special than that of a young child. Young children don’t know any better. They must depend on their parents for they are unable to defend for themselves until they become independent. Sin interfered with God original intentions. He used Israel to bring all nations back to themselves, showing them extra mercy so we all might benefit. The church today should be a similar light to others who God is and how much He has to offer them.
Thank God He is jealous. Thank God He gave the Ten Commandments through Moses to lead us to Him. Thank God He took a stand on idols. Idols are false gods. To glorify God is to bring glory to oneself, their family, and others. Psalm 96 says it best:
1 Sing to the LORD a new song;
sing to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Sing to the LORD, praise his name;
proclaim his salvation day after day.
3 Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous deeds among all peoples.
4 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise;
he is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the LORD made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before him;
strength and glory are in his sanctuary.
7 Ascribe to the LORD, all you families of nations,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
8 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
bring an offering and come into his courts.
9 Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns."
The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity.
11 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
12 let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy;
13 they will sing before the LORD, for he comes,
he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
and the peoples in his truth.
Chapter 9
God And Hell
Is God A Sadistic Torturer?
God And Hell
The subject of God and hell can be a major stumbling block in one’s relationship with God. Why does God even have to create a place such as hell? Does God torture individuals after death with fire forever if they do not believe in Him? We will discuss whether hell is annihilation (go out of existence) or unconditional immorality (live forever), but for argument sake, let’s say hell is a place that permanently separates you from God after death. One can argue that hell is necessary for freedom as well as for justice reasons.
It is obvious from the beginning that God created men and women with free will. He is not a God who forces others to believe in Him and accept His ways. God placed a higher premium on genuine intimacy and the choice to love, than to create a world without the possibility of hate and suffering. God gives people a right to rebel against Him and not be with Him forever. Those uncomfortable with the idea of Hell may propose that God will eventually save all people who will be in heaven with Him someday. This is unsatisfactory for it imposes God’s will on others. Some don’t wish to be with God for an eternity and He will not force the relationship, unlike some parents.
Also, one can argue hell is necessary for justice reasons. Is it just if one is not held accountable for their actions in this life? Most would agree punishment in this life for crimes is fair. What about those crimes one is never discovered or punished for? God gives hope to victims of horrendous evil acts. Justice delayed does not mean justice is not served. Justice after death is appropriate revenge for victims, thus why we should leave such actions to God. To be held accountable for our actions here on earth seems more moral than not being held accountable at all.
Accountability is better than no accountability. We should be glad God thought of it. It can cause one to think before they act on their impulses. There are no guarantees it will deter people from hate or evil, but it is in our best interests and those we come in contact with. Speed is a common cause of car accidents for both teenagers and adults. Imagine the lives saved if we all abided by the driving laws. Accountability works for me Honestly, one of the main reasons I abide by the driving laws is fear of the consequences. Insurance rate increases are a reality. The Ten Commandments have gotten a bad rap. God is not a controlling God. Can you imagine living in a neighborhood, city, or nation where the Ten Commandments are followed? There would be no need to lock our houses, our children could walk without fear outside the neighborhood, and nations would be safe from terrorism. God simply holds us accountable according to what our conscious tells us is justice, which is treating one another like we want to be treated.
What Is Hell?
If we accept that separation from God after death is a necessary choice given to others, this leaves us to discuss what hell is like. Many believe or have been taught that the Bible teaches hell to be a life of eternal torture after death. Rightly so, it is difficult for many to believe in or tell others about a God who supposedly tortures those after death forever with fire if they do not believe in Him. Some of us might not even persecute our enemies to this extent. This view of God is much to sadistic for many tastes. Is this the only possible biblical view of hell? Those who believe the Bible is God’s revelation are not forced to believe God tortures people forever. Pinnock states another alternative that best takes into account God’s love, mercy, and boundless love.
Being unable to discount the possibility of hell as a final irreversible condition, I am forced to choose between two interpretations of hell: Do the finally impenitent suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (in body and soul, either literally or metaphorically), or do they go out of existence in the second death? In other words, does hell fire torment or consume? I contend that God does not grant immortality to the wicked to inflict endless pain to them but will allow them finally to perish. (Four Views On Hell, 142-143)
The traditional view of hell has surely been a stumbling block for many believers and those who may be seeking a personal relationship with God. I am convinced this view can be harmful to the very character of God, thus we must be absolutely sure it is biblical. I have a confession to make though. I have come to a point in my faith that if it is true that God does punish those after death forever for not believing in Him, based on their actions is this world, I am absolutely convinced that God is fair and just. I have no doubt whatever God does, I will come to accept and see it His way. Until then, must we accept the traditional view of hell where God inflicts endless pain upon them who do not choose to spend eternity with Him in heaven, when our conscious suggests otherwise?
Biblical Passages Which Suggest Annihilation
There are several biblical passages that suggest hell is annihilation, that hell is not an eternal torture chamber. See Fudge’s book The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case For Conditional Immortality for a complete defense of this view from the Old and New Testament literature. We will examine some of these passages and then we will mention a few passages discussed by Pinnock, which seem to be most used or suggested that hell is everlasting torture. If there is a defendable interpretation of certain passages that do not paint God as a sadistic God, we should lean toward this viewpoint. God’s punishment may be severe and final, but I do not believe God is a sadist. This does not deny that there may be degrees of punishments (see Luke 12:46-48, Mt 11:23-24, Mt 23:14). Also, make no mistake that for those who rebel against God and do not choose eternal life, the Bible indicates the punishment will be real and forever.
In the Old Testament Psalms 37 states the wicked will soon die away (v.2), perish and vanish like smoke (v.20), and they will be destroyed (v.38). Job 34:15 mentions if it were God’s intention all would perish and return to dust. God doesn’t state His desire for punishment is forever. Malachi 4 warns that every evildoer will be stubble and that day that is coming will set them on fire (v.1), they will be ashes under the soles of the righteous feet on the day when God does these things (v.3).
In the New Testament Matthew 10:28 says be afraid of the one who can destroy both the soul and the body in hell. John 3:16 says whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. Paul in other writings says God would destroy the wicked (I Cor. 3:17), that the destiny of the wicked is destruction (Phil. 3:19). Hebrews 10:27 says God is a consuming fire. Finally, in Revelation 20:14 the lake of fire is described as the “second death,” the first death being here on earth after birth, then people will be raised from the dead to be judged by God. Just as fire destroys that which is cast into it, so God will destroy sinners in the same manner.
I recognize those who teach a view of hell I oppose on emotional and biblical grounds may do so because they are attempting to be faithful to what they believe God teaches about Himself through the Bible. I hope my motives are the same. I don’t understand those who wish to hold a view of God that I have described as sadistic, other than because they believe God teaches it. Who if given a choice of explaining hell and the God they love to others wouldn’t desire to believe that hell is eternal death for those who do not desire to be with God in heaven as opposed to eternal torture? Even victims may believe their torturer should only suffer the amount of pain they did.
No purpose is served in people being tortured forever. Punishing others brings God no joy. If fact, He came out of heaven through His Son to avoid us being alienated from Him. We don’t need to scare others into heaven by portraying God as a sadist. In fact, this may undermine the message in the Bible that suggests God wants a relationship with us presently. Eternal life with Him after death is our hope. In this life though, we can have an intimate relationship with our Creator and peace that passes all understanding, especially in difficult circumstance. Fudge summarizes the Old and New Testament passages best when he says: “God, not man, is the judge of the world, and he will do what is right. Once more, the question reverts to one of exegesis. What does Scripture say God will do? When we look there, we find it stated in dozens of ways that the wages of sin is death.” (209)
Biblical Passages Which Suggest Unconditional Immortality
Pinnock concludes that his objections to the traditional view of hell are strong and the case of understanding hell as annihilation is reasonable. “Biblical exegesis, theological reasoning, and practical realities all support the view of hell as annihilation.” (158). Let’s examine a few passages, which seem the most used or promising to defend hell is everlasting torture. In Mark 9:47-48 Jesus says about hell “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched,” possibly implying everlasting conscious suffering. Pinnock states about this passage:
But it does not imply it if we go back to the imagery of Isaiah 66:24 from which the phrase is drawn. Here the dead bodies of God’s enemies are being eaten by maggots and burned up. The fire and the worm in this figure are destroying the dead bodies, not tormenting conscious persons. By calling the fire unquenchable, the Bible is saying that the fire in not quenched until the job is finished. The tradition misreads this verse when it seems everlasting suffering in it. (155-156)
Matthew 25:46 Jesus says: “They will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life.” Pinnock notes though:
In this text, Jesus does not define the nature either of eternal life or of eternal death. This perspective gives us the freedom to interpret the saying about hell either as everlasting conscious torment (eternal punishing) or as irreversible destruction (eternal punishment). The text allows for both interpretations because it only teaches the finality of the judgment, not its precise nature. (156)
In Luke 16:19-31 in the story of the rich man dying and meeting his destiny in hell, torment is the theme.
Certainly the figure is there in the midst of much contemporary Jewish imagery and folklore. In a classic reversal-of-fortunes parable, the poor man (Lazarus) is carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom (v.22). But unless there is a lot of room in the patriarch’s lap, the detail seems to be imagery rather than a literal description of what the future life will actually be like. In addition, the story refers to hades (the intermediate state between death and resurrection), not to gehenna (the final end of the wicked), and is not strictly relevant to our subject. Nevertheless, the passage is regularly and unfairly appealed to in traditionalist literature to describe hell, not the intermediate state. The fact is that we cannot deduce from it what the final end of the wicked will be, apart from the issue of its literary genre. (156-157)
Finally, Revelation 14:10-11 speaks of those worshipping the beast in the end times as meeting their destiny by being “ 10they, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name." Pinnock says:
Regarding Revelation 14:11, we observe that, while the smoke goes up forever, the text does not say the wicked are tormented forever. It says that they have no relief from their suffering as long as the suffering lasts, but it does not say how long it last. As such it could fit hell as annihilation or the traditional view. Before oblivion, there may be a period of suffering, but not unendingly. Besides not teaching the traditional view, the text does not describe the end of history either, which is termed the second death, an image very much in agreement with annihilation. (Rev20:14) [157]
Conclusion
I am not denying the reality of hell. As I suggested, hell is necessary for freedom and justice reasons. God is just. His punishment, unlike human judgment often, will be exactly what one deserves. Thank God our destiny is not in the hands of our peers. Who better to judge those who have never heard the freedom God offers in this life. Who better to meet with those alienated from God because of an earthly parent who lead them down the wrong path. God is merciful. Decisions such as these as well as details of one’s punishment are unknown. Those refusing God will meet their end by their own choosing. The imagery used to describe this day for many is not a pretty sight for sure.
The duration of final punishment is everlasting. It is also reasonable to insist that the Bible does not teach that God will torture forever those who refuse His love. References to flames surely can be understood figuratively because then hell is also described in other places as a place of utter darkness. In Hebrews 12:27 God is called a consuming fire. Using flame imagery is a way of saying God is a God of judgment. Any figure of speech has a literal point. The Bible teaches the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). We cannot think we can live according to our own selfish gospel rather than the Gospel of Jesus without consequences. To live according to your own vices is a decision to be separate from God here on earth and after death. To live according to Jesus’ gospel ensures the abundant life here on earth and the hope of eternal life in heaven after death.
God only ask we live according to what our moral conscious suggests is right. If we are honest, His standards are only how we wish we act toward others and how others treat us. Perfection is not required, only a commitment to attempt to follow the moral highway. Jesus set the standard through example and His spirit can enable us to follow in His footsteps. This is how one lives a life without few regrets. Most upon their deathbed will look back on life with regrets if they did not live according to the guidelines God has given. God has only insisted on that which is for our own benefit. God would not be much of a Parent if He left us to our own vices rather than provide direction how we can truly be free. A parent who teaches but doesn’t force their children in the right direction is surely the ideal parent.
Chapter 10
God And Guidance
If God Doesn’t Speak, How Can We Know His Will in Our Life?
Understanding how God guides His followers can be a major stumbling block for many Christians. Why doesn’t God make His will clearer to those who follow Him? Many Christians for various reasons believe God has a specific will for their life, that there is only one person they can marry, only one place they can live, only one job they can work at. If this is the case, it is natural for Christians to wonder what God’s will is for their life. One’s assumption about God and the future may lead to thinking that God only has one specific will for each of us.
It is often assumed God’s foreknowledge includes knowing the future, thus making the future predetermined. (Chapter on God and The Future) Since the future is assumed to be knowable, Christians naturally wonder what future decisions they should make such as schools to attend, careers to pursue, and who to marry. Those who are convinced that the future is predetermined usually assume there is only one choice or path to take in order to do God’s will. Even if one believes God has in mind several choices you could make, they are still left with the dilemma of knowing God’s predetermined future. If the future if fixed as opposed to open, one may fear they need God to advise exactly what to do or they may not be in His will. When God doesn’t give us clear direction, then confusion, anger, or other emotions surface and intimacy with the Creator is affected.
The assumption that the future is fixed, thus divine foreknowledge includes knowing the future, may be inaccurate. This traditional view of God does not seem to do justice to the biblical accounts. The Bible speaks of God as grieving and as rejoicing. Scriptures indicate God appreciates and responds to the events in our lives as they happen. These descriptions do not indicate a God who knows what has already happened and the decisions make by His followers, and He is just putting on an emotional act. God interacts with a world where there is genuine creaturely freedom. This view of God does more justice to the presence of evil and suffering in the world. God did not create robots that are programmed to love. People are free to love or not love, free to make choices in their future, which often impacts others. This freedom, rather than God forcing us to love Him and predetermining the future, allows for a more genuine relationship. God feels our pain and the Bible indicates He responds as no earthly parent can.
As Richard Rice points out, this dynamic view of God is superior to the traditional view by every relevant criteria. It renders more faithfully the biblical description of God, it makes more sense logically, and it meets the needs of personal religious experience. Because the future is unknown, God feels what we feel. Our contribution is significant, not a part of same scam by God for a greater plan. This view of God does not require us to deny divine foreknowledge, only that we defend the scope of foreknowledge with care. God knows all possibilities that could happen and what He would do in response to each eventuality. God knows certain things will happen because He intended them and is powerful enough to bring them about (i.e. Flood, Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection). All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur. Genuine freedom excludes the concept that all future human actions are known. God cannot know the unknown. God though is unlimited in understanding the choices one can make and how He is able to respond the way He must to be true to His character.
Discovering God’s Will
In the Bible God at times spoke audibly His will if necessary. Some say today God speaks to them. I do not wish to argue with one who feels strongly that they have had a vision, dream, or audible voice from God, but one should not feel left out if God hasn’t communicated to them in this way. Many godly men and women do not claim such a privilege, but seem no less intimate with God. God’s audible voice was not even the norm in the Bible. God certainly spoke and guided more often earlier in history, but seemingly less often during Jesus’ time and thereafter. Perhaps God did not need to speak as often for revelation from God had been recorded over the generations. In II Timothy 3: 16-17 Paul says: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul is referring to the Older Testament, for the New Testament had not been written down in its entirety when Paul spoke these words. For those of us fortunate enough to have a Bible, we may have all the guidance we need.
When God did speak, there seem to be a significant reason for Him to do so. God communicated to Moses through a burning bush to rescue the Israelites from the hands of the Egyptians, but God did not speak to Moses concerning all decisions he had to make daily. God apparently had given Moses a mind and an internal, moral compass to make such decisions. One can assume that if God has a specific task for us to accomplish, He will make it crystal clear. You won’t be guessing if God is speaking to you. Paul heard Jesus’ voice on the road to Damascus. “But the Lord said to Ananias, Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” (Acts 9:15-16) Even those who suggest God continues to speak to us today do not claim God always speaks to us in every situation, thus we are still left with the dilemma of determining God’s will in many decisions we must make. There are countless instances in the Bible of decisions being made without being directly advised by God. There is no instance in the Bible where God holds a person accountable for not doing His will when not directly advised by God.
Some of us may think it would just be easier if God told us what to do. This may not always be the case. Would our earthly parents telling us what to do make life any easier? Isn’t it true sometimes when we just blurt out “just tell me what to do” and when our parents do so, we still may have a hard time following their advice. The Bible gives us evidence that when God is more direct and visible, even audible, life is not necessarily easier. The Israelites witnessed the ten plagues of Egypt, the Red Sea part, they drank water from a rock, and they digested the miracle of manna in their bellies. These same people, by the time Moses descended from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments from God, were dancing like heathens worshipping a golden calf. God’s directness doesn’t always produce the desired effect we think.
God, should I marry this person? God, what school should I apply to or attend? God, do you want me to be a missionary in a foreign land? Proverbs 3: 5-6 says: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight (direct your paths).” The context suggests the writer is talking about following God’s moral will. “My son, do not forget my teaching but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity…do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.” (v. 1-2,7-8) God’s moral will is clear throughout the pages of Scripture and in our heart. Allow God’s moral ways to guide you and spiritual, emotional, and many physical blessings are inevitable. Since God does not indicate He has a specific will in amoral decisions we make on a regular basis, we can make the reasonable assumption that if we trust in God He will direct our steps, surely making it clear if He has a specific task for us to perform. God is not holding out on us. We are free to initiate and pursue any opportunities we feel best utilizes our God given talents to make this a better world.
Sometimes we think or plead with God silently that if only He would show us a sign, we would obey. Asking God to be direct may be asking God to do something He purposely doesn’t think necessary. Also, maybe God does not require we only consider one mate, one job, etc. Do we really thing God can’t be in control if we aren’t all doing exactly what He has supposedly preplanned us to do in all our decisions. Can God not be in control if we don’t travel one specific path in living for Him? God apparently thought freedom was important enough that every future decision did not need to be preplanned, that there did not have to be one predetermined direction we must take. There can be many avenues we can travel to accomplish God’s will in our lives. The desire to serve God in all we do, loving others as He has loved us, can be accomplished whatever path we may go down due to our gifts, circumstances, or desires. God is far more creative and able than we give Him credit for. The Bible does not indicate clearly God’s only has one will in our life in all the minor and major decisions we must make in our lifetime.
Marriage And Career Decision
A significant issue we often look to God for answers concern if we are to marry and who to marry. No need to wait for a sign. God has already spoken to us. Paul said to his audience: “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.” (I Cor. 7:1) Paul explains himself later in his letter:
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (vs. 32-35)
Paul was living during a time he felt it was urgent to get the gospel out among the Gentiles. But, Paul was clear if one does not feel they can be single and not pursue immorality (v. 2), if they cannot control themselves and burn with passion (v. 9), it does no good to stay single and be absorbed in lust. Paul makes it clear one is not sinning if they feel it best to marry in their particular situation, even in Paul’s times of urgency of getting the gospel message out right after the Messiah has been on earth as predicted for two thousands years. Lest we think Paul is down on marriage, Paul makes it clear both singleness and marriage were gifts from God (v.7). Let’s remember Adam had fellowship with God in the beginning but God still decided to create woman for companionship and fill a void. Paul’s application seems to be that individuals must determine how they may best serve God. Each may decide how they can get best serve their Creator in all they do.
Paul and God obviously feel an individual is capable of making such decisions in their own life. Whether to marry or not is not something we must wait for an answer from God. Also, God has already spoken though Paul who we should marry if we believe best to do so. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14) The Bible never suggests there is only one man a woman must discover to marry to be in God’s will. There is no evidence that God is that controlling of the universe, yanking strings so everything falls in place or “each other laps.” Paul advises a widow “But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:39b). When one believes God has one specific partner and there is any confusion, they become focused on why God isn’t giving them clear direction. Waiting on God as if He only has one partner for us, can make one much to passive in their pursuits. One might focus too much on finding the “perfect partner” rather than who they are. Marriage is not about finding the perfect mate as much as loving one another as Christ loved us.
Another major decision Christians often look to their Creator for guidance concerns their vocation, even the educational institute they should attend to prepare for a career. Christians pray to God what specific career they should pursue and they agonize when God doesn’t make clear his answer. They might wait for God to open and shut certain doors, which can lead to passivity. When one already has a job and there is a task to accomplish, they don’t take the same approach. At work we tend to consider what needs to be accomplished, what talents we have, consider the wisdom of others, and then set out to complete the task at hand. During this process they are asking God to be with them and bless their efforts, to make it clear at any time if they are doing something wrong. Looking for a job should be no different.
One should determine their talents and desires where to serve others, consider where their abilities may be needed most, seek out the wisdom of others, and then set out to accomplish the goal. If they are not accepted at a school or turned away from a job, this doesn’t mean God has failed them or His will has not been accomplished. In a world where there is freedom, doors may shut for many reasons. God has proven if He doesn’t want a door shut, He will put His foot there. He doesn’t often interfere in that way unless He wishes to accomplish something He has promised beforehand (i.e. Jesus’ death on a cross for our sins). God’s will is accomplished in many different paths we may travel. This is the same in human relationships. Parents who love their children unconditionally understand their children can be all they are meant to be whatever profession they may choose.
When I left college, I was still not sure what full-time career I wanted to pursue. I did desire to please God in whatever I did. I did not struggle with the burden of figuring out what specific job or career I must pursue. I thought possibly I might best serve God in the pastorate with the gifts and desires I had. So, I pursued a seminary education. I consulted with others regarding the different seminaries to attend, applied to those seminaries, and was accepted. Had I not been accepted, I could have gone another direction or continued to persevere. If I continued to desire to serve God in this capacity, I would have needed to persist until unwise to continue to do so. Because I sought to please God in all I did, though failing often, it was not wrong for me to pursue the desires of my heart, which at that time were to attend seminary. I did not wait for God to call me to seminary or the pastorate. God had never spoken to me audible. I did not think it wise to guess if “certain circumstances” were a sign by God. He does not promise in Scriptures this is how He communicates with us. Once I attended seminary for a year, my career took another turn. God was with me each step of the way. God never once make it clear by voice or dream if I was to pursue a specific job, so I knew wherever I ended up, I was in His will. His will is for His children to serve Him in whatever they do, wherever they may be.
How do we discover God’s will for our life? The good news is that our futures are not predetermined so we have to be looking for some bulls-eye. We already know God’s moral will. The question is whether we will obey and serve Him whatever paths we take. Regarding amoral decisions God is not keeping anything from us. God is not so limited that everyone must find the perfect job for them or somehow God’s will is thwarted. God accomplishes His will in whatever we do. We should consider our God given gifts, desires, and the wisdom of others to direct us. As long as we love God and attempt to follow the model His Son set, we can’t miss His will. God will make it evident if there is a specific school, career, or person He wants you to choose. He usually doesn’t. God has empowered us to pursue the desires of our heart where we think we can make the greatest contribution to the world. Who to marry? Relax. God’s morally advises Christians to marry Christians for logical reasons, otherwise what will the children know to believe. There is not one right mate for you, so somehow you might miss God’s best. Someone once said God’s will is accomplished by “doing all the good we can, by all the means we can, in all the ways we can, in all the places we can, at all the times we can, to all the people we can, as long as we can.”
Conclusion
God’s plan is not a detailed blueprint but a general one for us to be set free to love. Just because God doesn’t have a specific career or mate for you doesn’t mean He loves you any less or you are any less valuable to Him. I don’t love my children less because I don’t have a specific career in mind for them. In fact, it may be more loving to be less controlling. We are uniquely gifted both from our Creator as well as from social and other experiences growing up. I have always had a passion to see marriages and families be all God intended, even as an adolescent boy. It makes sense I ended up in the counseling profession. My career though could have taken many directions. I could have still served God working at the post office, or serving others by collecting their garbage. I have attempted to serve God through my marriage. This was better accomplished because I married a Christian woman so we could encourage one another in our relationship with God and raise our three children without any confusion what to believe. I could have still though been in God’s will if I never met Janet and married a different Christian woman. I can be in God’s will whether I have no children, three children, or nine children. We were fortunate to be able to have children and three children seemed to a wise number.
One doesn’t have to worry what God’s will is or whether they are doing God’s will. God will make it very clear if He has a specific task for you to accomplish as He did for Abraham, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, Paul, and possible others after the New Testament era. You may pursue the desires of your hearts where you feel you can best serve God and others. God has given us a tremendous amount of freedom. You don’t have to spend you time worrying if you are in God’s will. A loving earthly father doesn’t worry what their children do, whether they are a lawyer, doctor, stay at home mom, etc. They just want their children to be happy and serve God and others to their fullest. God is no different. Ask yourself and consult with others: what is the wisest path for me to choose at this time in my life based on past experience, current circumstances, and future aspirations? Attempt to accomplish great things for God and leave the outcome in His hands. As I have said, we know we are in God’s will when we are doing all the good we can, by all the means we can, in all the ways we can, in all the places we can, at all the times we can, to all the people we can, as long as we can.
Chapter 11
God And Forgiveness
Must We Forgive Those Who Don’t Admit Wrongdoing?
God And Forgiveness
Must we or should we instantly forgive all wrongdoing in order to be obedient to God? Even though they show no remorse, does God demand Christians forgive Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or parents who physically or sexually abuse their children yet deny their actions when confronted? One can imagine the tremendous stumbling block this is for many in their relationship with God. What does the Bible teach regarding how God responds to those who don’t seek forgiveness or express any remorse? As we answer these questions, we should consider the many passages in the Bible that speak of God not forgiving, the numerous passages that imply repentance or confession of wrongdoing is a condition necessary for God’s forgiveness, and the passages that suggest God’s forgiveness is conditioned on one’s willingness to forgive others.
I have written this chapter with much trepidation of being misunderstood. In hindsight I have written this chapter with at least one main audience in mind and that is those who have been violated and the guilty are not repenting. It seems the emphasis of current advice or sermons on forgiveness are toward victims who are encouraged to forgive without any thought of whether it matters if the guilty confess or even acknowledge their sins. It is true that God sometimes is only seen in this world when the unforgivable are forgiven, but is the emphasis of Scripture on God forgiving those not repenting? God’s forgiveness for salvation discusses the importance of confession of sin, or else how do we know we need to change. In the Old Testament whenever God warns He will punish certain peoples if their evil behaviors continue, if these people do not repent does God forgive them for such behaviors before carrying out His justice? In the Final Judgment is God going to perform some type of ritual where He forgives those who don’t confess their sins, before condemning them to eternity without God?
Most agree the Bible teaches God forgives those who desire His forgiveness, no matter the offense. As a Christian I must prepare to forgive even my enemies if they seek forgiveness. I must not continually scheme how to take revenge or wish evil upon them. This surely is Satan’s will for my life. God only asks we do into others what God has done for us. Who of us has never sinned? If we refuse to forgive one another, reconciliation is never possible. What does the Bible says though if the guilty party does not seek forgiveness? After discussing briefly what the Bible says about God and forgiveness, we will discuss passages where Jesus and Stephen forgave their persecutors when there was no confession evident; forgiveness versus reconciliation; Jesus’ command to love our enemies; and circumstances such as adultery or abuse. Finally, we will make some concluding remarks as we attempt to answer the question whether Christians should or must forgive those who sin against them yet express no remorse.
Keep in mind the Bible is really a book of stories, as opposed to tight theological treatises on topics such as forgiveness. One's individual circumstances may determine how they handle a relationship matter that involves forgiveness. There may be times to forgive when confession of the guilty isn't present and at others times to be more concerned with not harboring bitterness than forgiving the unrepentant. As you will see though, the majority of Bible stories suggest with forgiveness it takes two to tango.
God Always Forgives Those Who Seek His Forgiveness
The story of Joseph and his brothers illustrates God’s love and forgiveness, whatever the sin. Joseph initially intended to kill Joseph but Reuben intervened and had him thrown into a well. Eventually, the rest of the brothers sold Joseph into slavery. Years later when the brothers visited Egypt, not realizing they would meet up with Joseph, Joseph reassures his brothers by forgiving them in Genesis 50:15-21:
When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly. Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.’ When their message came to him, Joseph wept. His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves,” they said but Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
It is true Joseph’s father requested forgiveness in behalf of his son’s actions. I think though throwing yourself down at the feet of the one you have done wrong and offering to be their slave qualifies for confession. (Verse 18) How often do we see such actions today in our culture when someone has wronged another person? Many people don’t admit their wrongdoing or offer some excuse for their sin. Joseph’s compassion and forgiveness of his brothers illustrates God’s attitude and actions toward those who seek His forgiveness, as seen in the below passages.
Leviticus 5: 5-6 says: “When anyone realizes their guilt in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned and, as a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.” The Old Testament sacrificial system was based on confession and offering of a sacrifice for wrongdoing. God was preparing His people for what the ultimate sacrifice would be for sins - the death of His own Son. Psalms 51:17 speaks what the ultimate sacrifice is from people toward God: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”
II Chronicles 7:14 says: “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” Psalms 32:5 says: “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin.” In I Kings 8:46-51 Solomon prayed when Israel rebels but then seeks God:
When they sin against you-for there is no one who does not sin-and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near; and if they have a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their conquerors and say, 'We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly’; and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who have sinned against you; forgive all the offenses they have committed against you, and cause their conquerors to show them mercy; for they are your people and your inheritance, whom you brought out of Egypt, out of that iron-smelting furnace.
The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament message to forgive those who seek forgiveness, just as God has forgiven us. Luke 17:1-4 says:
Jesus said to his disciples: Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around your neck than for you to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them, and if they repent, forgive them. If they sin against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,’ you must forgive them.
Acts 8:22 says: “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.” I John 1:9 says: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” Does God forgive us before we repent? One would be hard pressed to find any biblical passages that indicate God forgives those who don’t repent, or that God commands His followers to forgive those who don’t repent. There is no story to tell if forgiveness is not being sought. With forgiveness it takes two to tango. The innocent party must be willing to forgive; the guilty party must recognize and confess their sin. Often, amends must be made. God is waiting to forgive us if we will only seek Him out.
God Didn’t Always Forgive
We must not assume God forgives no matter the heart of the transgressor. Many biblical passages advise God does not forgive those who have no regret. I will only cite a few passages for consideration, but one should be slow to judge or assume forgiveness is granted despite an unchanged heart. Joshua 24:19-20 says:
Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” (See also Hosea 1:6-7)
Forgiveness is a gift from God, but clearly we must seek God’s forgiveness with a desire to change. God does not overlook rebellion. God doesn’t forgive those who continue to rebel and don’t seek Him. God very much desires a relationship with us, but God will not force Himself on anyone. The end of the story above in Joshua reports God’s receptiveness of His people, the Israelites, if they “throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel.” (v.23)
God takes action against sin when one doesn’t admit much less stop their rebellious behavior. God does not forgive such behaviors. There are consequences for any sin, much less for the shedding of innocent blood. II Kings 24:1-4 says:
During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets. Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD's command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.
In the New Testament Matthew 12: 31-32 says:
And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Many worry if they slip and say something bad or evil against the Holy Spirit they have committed the unpardonable sin. Most scholars agree those who committed the unpardonable sin at the time of the above writing were those who refused to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was. They denied Jesus’ deity, even accusing Him of being demon possessed. They wanted nothing to do with Jesus and certainly were not seeking His forgiveness. They will suffer the same as others who don’t seek forgiveness of their sin – they will be held accountable for their actions. The Bible also is very clear that those who deny Jesus, call Him names, and accuse Him of lies but they then seek His forgiveness, Jesus welcomes them with open arms. The apostle Paul approved Stephen’s stoning and persecuted the Christians before meeting God on the road to Damascus (Acts 8 and 9), but he was forgiven by God and chosen as the supreme ambassador for Jesus while writing much of the New Testament.
Biblical authors are not shy to address situations when people do not seek God’s forgiveness. The Bible many times says God does not forgive in reference to those who do not seek His forgiveness. The Bible doesn’t focus on forgiveness when repentance is not present. Why should it? It is almost nonsensical to consider or advise others to forgive when forgiveness is not being sought. One can imagine to stress forgiveness in these situations can cause more psychological stress for the victim. Also, the guilty must face the harm they have done others to stop the cycle of victimization. Forgiving someone when there is no remorse is not always God-like behavior and may do more harm than good. Also, expecting someone to forgive another who has sinned against them, when there is no expression of remorse, may not always be God’s expectation. Instead, we will see below that the biblical emphasis regarding God’s forgiveness is that if one confesses their wrongdoing, God is always willing to forgive.
I would never judge one if they did forgive their transgressor despite their lack of regret. I can think of no biblical examples where humans are advised to not forgive. I have read stories where in other countries where people of faith were beaten for what they believed and they forgave their abusers. The guilty sometimes would drop to their knees in amazement. God’s wisdom is certainly necessary in all our actions. The biblical evidence though does not seem to command forgiveness in all situations. I understand we are not God and not totally like God. But, I think the fact that we are made in the image of God suggests we do have some things in common. I have made the assumption that because God does not always forgive that this may be applicable to our situations at times. The Bible doesn’t say God doesn’t forgive because somehow He knows all in advance who wouldn’t ask for forgiveness. Sometimes, forgiveness is just not appropriate thus not commanded. Why would God ask us to do something He doesn’t Himself – forgive the unrepentant?
Forgiveness From God Conditioned Upon One’s Willingness To Forgive
Numerous biblical passages speak of the importance of one’s willingness to forgive if they are seeking God’s forgiveness. Matthew 6:14 says: “For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Mark 11:25 says: “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” Matthew 18:21-35 in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant illustrates the importance of forgiving to be forgiven:
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive someone when who sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. 29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive a brother or sister from your heart.”
We are quick to point out in this parable how many times we must forgive – not seven times but seventy-seven times (some manuscripts say seventy times seven). But notice God’s response to the servant who was unwilling to forgive his own servants further in the parable. The point of the parable is not to forgive exactly seventy-seven times and no more, or that if we have failed by not forgiving others, God will never forgive us. The moral of the story is to follow God’s example by forgiving those as God has forgiven us as often as necessary. It is just like us humans to seek or receive forgiveness and then turn around and not offer the same to those who have offended us. God speaks out strongly against such hypocrisy by advising we must forgive others as God has forgiven us. God needs His people through their actions demonstrating to others who He is.
Jesus’ Model for prayer in Matthew 6 speaks of the importance of forgiveness:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Thankfully, God is readily willing to forgive those who confess their sins. We must be willing to confess our sins; we must be willing to forgive others of their sins. Don’t mistake forgiveness with not having to suffer consequences for our wrongdoing. Experiencing the consequences of our actions are often necessary and life changing. In Numbers 14 God forgave the Israelites who saw God miraculous signs performed in Egypt and were still disobedient, but they were forbidden to see the Promised Land. In 1 Samuel 15 when Saul did not follow God’s instructions, God appeared to forgive but God rejected Saul as King. Forgiveness does not mean there are not consequences to one’s actions.
Jesus’ and Stephens’ Forgiveness Of Their Persecutors
Most biblical passages when speaking on forgiveness address the importance of either seeking forgiveness or being willing to forgive others who repent. Many sermons today though seem to focus a great deal on Christians’ willing to forgive those who aren’t seeking forgiveness, thus not acknowledging any wrongdoing or the pain they have caused others. The Bible doesn’t speak a great deal to this matter, rather focusing on when repentance is present. Jesus and Stephen’s story are similar for as they neared death, they forgive their persecutors who were certainly not seeking their forgiveness. Jesus and Stephen ask God to forgive their accusers “because they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23: 33-34 says:
When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminal—one on his criminals--one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” [Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence]. And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Acts 7: 51-59 says:
You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him-- you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.” When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look,” he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
Jesus’ words (Luke 23:34) are often cited to support we should always seek to forgive others regardless of their actions. Jesus’ words are not found in earlier manuscripts but it would not be surprising at all if He said these words on the Cross. These were extraordinary circumstances as were Stephen’s. Both men knew they were fixing to enter the presence of God. Stephen actually saw Jesus as He was preparing to die. Jesus and Stephen both forgave spiritual blindness, which their persecutors neither confessed nor recognized. Sometimes behaviors of others may seem less willful and more due to spiritual ignorance. Many passages above suggest God was not always quick to forgive willful, rebellious behavior of the Israelites who witnessed His greatness.
God chose the Jewish nation as a vessel to save all nations. Jesus came as a Jew to save the world from itself. Yet, the spiritual blindness of Jewish people continued generation after generation. One may forgive a young person for their spiritual blindness due to parental and generational influence, but anyone who sins will be held accountable, unless they turn from such influences. We must be careful how we apply Jesus’ and Stephen’s story to those who suffer physical, sexual, or any other violation at the hands of those who know what they do is wrong, and yet they do not confess or take responsibility for their hideous behaviors. We must take into account the whole counsel of the Bible rather than pick these two passages to apply to all situations one may encounter. As we have seen above, God is not quick to forgive those who continue to sin and forsake Him by not acknowledging their sin.
A Christian who must confront their fellow believer’s sin is not told to forgive if they will not listen, but to treat them as if a pagan. The Bible doesn’t say after disciplining them to necessarily have a ritual of forgiveness. (Mt. 18:15-20) One can always choose to forgive another of their debt, but where there is mercy there must be justice. If one steals money and the money is not paid back by the guilty or some party, there is still a debt to be paid. Sin seldom just impact one person. When a child steals from their parents, this is money a parent may have intended for siblings or others. This is why the Cross was necessary. God could not just verbally forgive sinners. Self-centered living impacts others, causing a price to be paid
Forgiveness Versus Reconciliation
Steve Gregg in his article on Divorce and Remarriage () suggests a distinction between personal forgiveness and public reconciliation. Public reconciliation may or may not take place depending on the actions of the guilty. Reconciliation can only happen with the repentance of the offending party. It is suggested personal forgiveness, which is merely the release of any bitterness toward the perpetrator, must always take place. Certainly, this fits the example of Jesus and Stephen mentioned above.
I agree it seems psychologically sound for victims to not harbor bitterness toward the guilty; otherwise, this seemingly allows the guilty to continue to be the victimizer. How to do this effectively is a whole another chapter. Bitterness serves no healthy purpose. God can bring some good out of what was intended for harm when we don’t harbor bitterness. Revenge or justice is best left up to God or appropriate authorities. While I agree reconciliation is only possible if the guilty seeks forgiveness, I do not think one must forgive so to not harbor bitterness. I would never advise one to not forgive the guilty, but I would comfort those who are unable to forgive but wish to not harbor bitterness. It seems examples above about God’s behavior would justify such actions. God did not automatically forgive all wrongdoing. Is God always privately forgiving those rebelling against Him or is God always ready to forgive even the worst offenders should they seek forgiveness?
Colossians 3:13 says: “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” Mark 11:25 says: “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” Granted, these and other verses do not say forgive only if you are first asked forgiveness. I do not think we should sit and stew over the smallness of things. One may not even know they have grieved one with their behavior. I just believe there are always legitimate exceptions sometimes to “whatever” without doing injustice to the writer’s meaning. Paul is not thinking of exceptions. In the same context (Colossians 3:18), wives are told to submit to their husbands. No exceptions are mentioned, but it can be understood a wife does not need to submit to physical abuse nor does she need to submit to immoral requests. In verse 20 Paul tells children to obey their parents in “everything.” I do not think we violate Paul’s meaning when we recognize there are exceptions to “everything.” I do not think the above passages contradict when Luke quotes Jesus as saying: “So watch yourselves. If a brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them, and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive them." (17:3).
Easy forgiveness may not encourage necessary change by the sinner, which impacts those they come in contact later. In Matthew 18 advice is given to a Christian when a believer sins against them. Go and show them their fault. If they do not listen, take another Christian with you. If they continue to refuse to listen, treat them as if an unbeliever. Might this have been a time for the writer to suggest we should forgive anyway? It doesn’t. Silence doesn’t prove a point, but it does not seem passages where sin is involved command forgiveness. Other passages above such as Col. 3 that speak of forgiveness are not meant to address every possible situation in our life. Again though, I would never advise one not to forgive. But, neither would I advise one they must forgive those who don’t repent or they are sinning themselves. The Bible, when speaking of situations where one is sinning and not repenting, doesn’t command forgiveness first before other actions take place (Jesus and moneychangers, church discipline issues, brother sinning against you (Matthew 18). In 2 Timothy 4:14-18 Paul says God will repay Alexander for harm. Paul doesn’t speak of forgiving Alexander (though he might have), but in verse 16 he talks of others deserting him and says: “may it not be held against them.” Paul can pray that he not but controlled by bitterness, but that Alexander receive justice from God. The Bible does not spell out a bunch of rules for these situations. Wisdom in each situation is necessary.
Love Your Enemies
Many who emphasize forgiveness, regardless of the heart of the offender, point to passages such as Matthew 5:38-48. Even though the passage does not address forgiveness directly, the subject of loving others who don’t necessary deserve or return one’s love is related.
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to them the other check also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Jesus often used hyperbolic language to make a point. Jesus obviously didn’t always take a passive stance against sin as we see in His encounter with moneychangers in the temple (Mt. 21:12). Jesus would not advise soldiers on the battlefield to not defend themselves against their enemies. From the Old Testament we see God knew war was sometimes necessary to counteract evil in an evil world. Jesus would not advise a woman to continue to accept physical abuse by her husband without reaching out for help. Men often don’t stop their violence until confronted by others and held accountable for their actions and attitudes. A parent doesn’t continually turn their check or eyes when their child is causing harm to others or using drugs. Love sometimes must be tough in order to encourage necessary change. Having said all this though, let’s not water down Jesus’ message.
Jesus surely was challenging his listeners to consider the radical nature of His message. It is easy to love those who love you back (v.46). This is the natural thing to do for most. It is not natural to love those back who don’t reciprocate. Jesus sought out those who despised Him in hopes that they would have a change of heart and consider His message. If Jesus only attempted to love those who loved Him back, His influence would not have been as great. How do we apply “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to them the other check also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” We will address specific situations in concluding remarks, but a few general comments are in order.
Jesus’ command to love is radical. Christians must take the high road. Christians must not seek revenge. We must not return “like behavior for like behavior.” We must attempt to not become bitter but pray loved ones or our enemies will become open to God’s ways. We must be prepared to forgive others if they confess their sins, though we may not think or feel they deserve it. Anyone can hate their enemies back. Christians though can respond back to their enemies in ways that may influence them for good. We don’t have to put ourselves in harm’s way. Neither must we always seek instant justice. Jesus in Matthew 5 was not addressing every particular situation; He was speaking in general that the heart of the Christian is radically different. We must seek the wisdom of God and others how we might respond in each situation. God always sought change not instant justice. Most of us would not be the people we are today if not for God’s radical love.
Specific Situations Such As Adultery Or Abuse
Sometimes the one who has done great, personal wrong (i.e. abuse, adultery) is seeking forgiveness, but the victim struggles to forgive. Must the Christian spouse forgive? God forgave murderers such as Moses and Paul; God forgave David’s adultery who clearly regretted his actions (Ps. 51). Is forgiveness required immediately? If there are doubts about one’s sincerity, nothing says forgiveness must be immediate. It is okay to struggle. The fact that one is even open to forgiving suggests they are on the right road as a Christian. How do you know if one is genuine in their confession? Proof is in the pudding! One who is genuine is willing to prove over time by their actions they are sincere. God can look on one’s heart. We humans are unable to do this, so time often proves genuineness. God knows one’s capability of sinning again, but this doesn’t prevent Him from forgiving if one sincerely confesses their sins.
The guilty must confess their sin without blaming anyone or circumstances for their actions. One chooses to be unfaithful to their spouse. A bad marriage or whatever excuse is thought of doesn’t cause anyone to commit adultery. Sin is a choice. If a guilty spouse is sorry for their actions, they will do whatever it takes to prove their sincerity. If necessary, they will agree to 24-hour accountability, they will agree to a separation, they will do whatever it takes to enable reconciliation. The guilty spouse’s needs will be paramount, not their own needs.
Does forgiveness mean a spouse must be willing to reconcile? Though I can speak of many positive reasons for a spouse to consider this route than divorce when genuine repentance is present, each person’s situation is different. The wisdom of many must be sought. Certainly God has had many reasons to divorce us, but He has been patient and long-suffering. The adulterer who neither seeks forgiveness nor is willing to prove genuine change, then divorce may have to be an option. Easy forgiveness, without discernment whether repentance is genuine, may actually do more harm than good to both parties involved.
Please understand I am not speaking about squabbles couples often have in their relationship. Though couples should admit and seek forgiveness for even the slightest wrongdoing to one another, abuse and adultery are very grave sins. Let us be slow to advice or judge others who are victims of these horrendous actions that they must forgive their violators, when no wrongdoing is acknowledged. But, it is perfectly permissible for one to personally choose to forgive others for personal wrongdoing though the guilty show no remorse. As we saw above, God was not always forgiving toward those who did not confess nor seek forgiveness of their sins. When the guilty are not seeking forgiveness, a Christian’s challenge is to not respond with revenge or bitterness. We can strive to pray for our enemies, asking God to convince them of their wrongdoing and need for repentance, thus not causing harm to others and future generations. When the guilty seek forgiveness in a genuine manner, may God fill us with His power to forgive others as He has forgiven us.
What are some considerations for those who have been physically or sexually abused by a parent? Unfortunately, many parents don’t take responsibilities for their actions. Some, when they open their mouth, only have excuses for their behavior. Many abusive parents do not seek forgiveness, but some advise the victim they should forgive their parent(s). Often, victims feel guilty for ill feelings they have toward their parents. If a parent seeks forgiveness and proves genuine over time, one may forgive the abuser. This doesn’t necessarily mean the child must or is wise to let the parent back in their life completely. Forgiveness does not mean all consequences of one’s actions are wiped away or forgotten. One who is able to reconnect in the relationship is to be respected, but situations are different. Seek the wisdom and help of many. For those parents who push themselves on their children after wrongdoing, they obviously don’t understand the magnitude of their sins. These parents rather than spending their time demanding forgiveness or reconciliation should be thanking God forgiveness is even a possibility.
Conclusion
I do not wish to suggest God never forgives without heart-felt sorrow from the guilty. In Numbers 14:20 God forgave the Israelites at Moses’ request; the Israelites didn’t request forgiveness. Consequences still resulted though. The Bible as a whole seems to suggest forgiveness is typically conditional upon one’s seeking forgiveness and one’s willing to forgive others. Why would God require we do something He doesn’t – forgive the unrepentant? The Bible offers much hope for those who seek forgiveness. God’s challenge was how to get sinners to repent, to follow love – God chose the incarnation. Jesus didn’t have to persuade God to stop being angry and start forgiving. God has always been the seeking Parent. Jesus died not to change God’s attitude but our attitude toward God. It is love we confront at the Cross, not His wrath against us. By God suffering as a human through Christ, He surely gained moral authority and credibility with humans in overcoming evil. (See Unbounded Love by Pinnock and Brow)
Sinners must recognize how their selfishness is ruining their lives and the lives of others they impact. Justice is demanded for the pain caused by one’s actions. Don’t we all long for some kind of justice when others or we have been wronged. The guilty or innocent must sacrifice something in an attempt to right wrongs. Forgiveness is never without a cost. Where there is mercy there must always be justice. This is why God went to elaborate lengths in the Old Testament to require sacrifices. This is why the Cross was necessary and God could not just verbally forgive sinners. The Cross and Jesus’ violent death teaches us there is always a price that must be paid. God chose to pay the price for us rather than requiring we pay the price for our own self-centeredness.
Unfortunately, many do not confess or admit any wrongdoing. Starting a confession with “I acted this way because…” is not a true confession. Many have been violated by another person’s wrongdoing. Sometimes, even though the violator doesn’t seek forgiveness, the Christian victim is haunted with thoughts whether they must forgive their violator. Others may be urging them to forgive. It seems to me the challenge for victims, when forgiveness is not sought, is not necessarily to focus on forgiveness. This doesn’t appear to always be God’s focus. The challenge is to not take revenge. God is able to handle revenge without being vindictive. A second challenge is to not allow bitterness to rule or interfere with life on a daily basis. What purpose is served to allow another person’s sins to continue to hold you hostage? I don’t know any other way to deal with bitterness than on a spiritual basis. Look to God and those who have successful dealt with bitterness on how to move on. Finally, we must pray to God for the power to be able to forgive those who have done evil against us should they ever seek forgiveness due to genuine regrets. Just as God forgives any sin we confess, we must be willing to follow His example and forgive those who sin against us.
Christians are challenged to forgive those who genuinely regret their actions. It is the central message of Christianity. It is the very heart of the gospel, the very character of God. People often only experience what God is like when they are forgiven though not deserving. Please do not conclude from what I have written that one can earn forgiveness. Please do not conclude one can necessarily payback what they have taken from someone (i.e. childhood with appropriate parental love, sexual purity). Please do not conclude forgiveness must be instant. Genuineness is proven through actions than just words. Christians don’t forgive because others deserve it; Christians forgive because God forgave us. We certainly did nothing to earn or deserve His grace. Our asking for forgiveness doesn’t make salvation earned by works, but confession is an integral aspect of how we receive God’s grace.
Chapter 12
God And Women
Does God Favor Men Over Women As Leaders And Teachers?
God And Women
Does the Bible teach only men, and not women, are to be teachers or ministers in the church? Does the Bible teach men are to exercise loving leadership over their wives in marriage as opposed to self-giving love within a relationship of mutual submission? The answers to these questions are very important to discern. One can understand how positive answers to these questions make it appear God plays favorites or thinks men are more competent than women. Women over the centuries have been subject to abuse at the hands of men. Based on man’s track record, it seems the last thing men need over women is any type of authority. One person wrote to the editor of a newspaper “…it’s been bothering me since 9/11. What’s the difference between the strain of Islam that proscribes gender roles and its counterpart in Christianity that does the same thing, albeit with a different set of prohibitions?”
Over the years I have tried to take rigid stands only on what appears to be clear in Scriptures. After all, God’s opinion matters more any human. Lately, I have chosen to become more dogmatic on the issue of men and women roles in marriage and the church. I have seen a great deal of pain coming from the notion that the husband is the spiritual leader of the woman in marriage. As well, many women are denied the privilege to exercise their spiritual gifts in the church because of one particular biblical passage (I Tim. 2:11-15), which is highly debated among evangelical scholars. Finally, many people are not interested in a faith or God who teaches husbands have more authority than their wives when it comes to decision making in the relationship, when often the woman is far more competent in certain areas of the relationship. If the Bible does not teach man has authority over a woman, we are causing others to unnecessarily stumble by not teaching the true nature of God.
Over the years I have seen marriages destroyed or lack the intimacy desired by God because of how men live out their role based on perceived biblical teachings. I understand many do not abuse what I will refer to as a “loving leadership” model as opposed to a “servanthood” model of love. This is not the case though for many husbands who believe they have any kind of authority over their wives in marriage. Furthermore, many women become confused, frustrated, and alienated from God when expected to be submissive to their husband in a way their husband is not submissive to them. The argument that you are equal but have less authority probably didn’t do much for slaves as well. In relationships when one has more authority than the other, abuse is possible because of human nature. There are more checks and balances when under authority of one’s government or church leadership. Even then church leadership doesn’t have authority over one’s personal relationship with Christ and their individual decisions. Christians are under the authority of Jesus the Christ.
I ask men who will listen to please reconsider their view if they believe men have any kind of authority over women. Defending the views I advocate are Keener and Mickelson. Hurley, Piper and Grudem defend opposing views. Men who believe the Bible teaches husbands have spiritual leadership over their wives often believe this means they have the final say so in decision making when there is an impasse. This is not stated anywhere in Scripture; it is assumed to be a function of man being the “head.” I have been married over 25 years and not once have my wife and I had an impasse that couldn’t be solved through commonly known conflict resolution methods. It is predicted man will tend to rule over women as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16). Often, it is assumed this passage is a prescription of God’s ideal order as opposed to a prediction of the effects of the Fall, which fits the context better. Responsibilities and decisions can be determined according to one’s gifts and expertise as opposed to gender or cultural expectations. For those couples who are doing great with the “loving leadership” model, that is their prerogative but such a model should not be forced on couples as if the biblical model.
The Bible Does Not Limit Women In Their Roles
When considering the whole counsel of the Bible, except for two passages we will look at in detail below, it appears women are mentioned in numerous roles in the Bible and their roles are not limited or gender specific. It appears the only limitations on women in terms of service would be personal giftedness and possible circumstances where male than female leadership is suggested (cf. I Tim. 2 below). In different circumstances, it may be wise a woman be in leadership rather than a man. First, we will look in summary form the Bible as a whole where women’s roles are spoken of without any limits as to what they cannot do. Then, we will explore more in depth two passages, which seem to defend limits on women’s role. We will also explore marriage roles and the problems with the loving leadership model as opposed to a servanthood model of love.
Craig Keener makes several following observations in chapter one in Two Views On Women In Ministry edited by Beck and Blomberg. In the Old Testament, prophetesses included Miriam, sister of Moses (Ex. 15:20), Huldad (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22), and apparently Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3). Deborah (Judg. 4:4) was both a judge and prophetess. Such an authoritative role by a woman was extremely rare but the text offers no condemnation (Beck & Blomberg, 33). Those who suggest Deborah’s calling as judge and prophetess constituted a “shaming of Israel” have no textual evidence for such an assertion. There were false women prophets (Nehemiah 6:14; Ezekiel 13:17), but they were rebuked not because they were women but because their revelation was not truly from God. In summary, the least we can say is that the Old Testament recognizes a place for women in roles of civil authority and as spokeswomen for God to His people. Women were not usually cast in a leadership role, but when they are they are used of God and accepted by the people. So, then, the saying “a woman’s place is always in the home” is not necessarily a biblical one. In the Hebrew culture obviously it was the norm.
In the New Testament women prophetess included Anna (Luke 2:36) and Philip’s four virgin daughters. (Acts 21:9) Paul affirms women both praying and prophesying publicly. (I Cor. 11:4-5) When God poured out His Spirit once the Messiah had come, women as well as men prophesized. (Acts 2:17-18) Paul refers to many women as “fellow-workers.” Euodia and Syntche are said to have labored side by side with Paul in spreading the Gospel. (Philip. 4:2-3) This kind of terminology is also used to describe Phoebe’s and Priscilla’s role. Phobe clearly served in a leadership role in the church as Paul encouraged the church to give there support to her. (Rm 16:2] The word “fellow-worker (synergos) is used by Paul twelve times. (see Rm. 16:9, 21; I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 1:24, 8:23; Philip. 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; I Thes. 3:2; Phil. 1: 1, 24) Priscilla, Aquila, and Philemon of whom Paul uses this word for certainly performed ministerial duties. The common thread is that they were said to have worked alongside Paul. We cannot say for sure then these women were ministers but in I Corinthians 16:16 Christians are exhorted “to be subjected to every fellow-worker and laborer.” Priscilla and Aquila obviously had a role of leadership in the Ephesus church. The church met at their home (I Cor. 16:19) and both were instrumental in “explaining to Apollo the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26) The New Testament does not say explicitly Priscilla was a public teacher. The very least we can say is that Priscilla participated in the spread of the gospel through means other than nonverbal.
Paul conveys personal greetings to more women than men in Romans 16. In Romans 16:7 Paul speaks of Andronicus and Junia as apostles. Because of the way Latin names are transcribed into Greek, Junia grammatically can be nothing other than a woman’s name. Some argue “of note among the apostles” means simply that the apostles thought well of them. The most natural and common sense of “among” a group means that both are members of the apostles. (i.e. Rom.1:13; 8:29) One must admit the simplest reading of Romans 16:7 is a hard case for those who oppose women ministries, as the opposing side must admit the simplest reading of I Timothy 2:11-12 is a challenge for their case.
Spiritual gifts were given by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-21; Rom.12: 4-8; I Cor. 12:7-12) without preferences to gender and without any mention of women being excluded from ministry. All may prophesy. (I Cor. 14:31) Both women and men can lead in worship through prayer and the spoken word (I Cor. 11:4-5) such as the four women who prophesied in the church of Caesarea. (Acts 21:9) As in the Old Testament, if we restrict ministry to men because priests were male, why should we not restrict it also to a particular tribe, as the law clearly did. Some question why Jesus, who often showed Himself to be counter cultural, chose only men to be His twelve disciples. Jesus certainly advanced the status of women (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42), but Jesus chose his closest workers most strategically for the culture He intended to reach. This does not mean Jesus would never choose Gentiles or women to follow him later. If we accept women were acknowledged in Scriptures to be prophets and other ministers, there is no reason to exclude women from the pastoral office. Men clearly predominated, but surely that was cultural as Jews and free people in the earliest period predominated as well. In the Old Testament the most common form of ministry with respect to declaring God’s word was the prophetic ministry. If one says prophecy has ceased, then evidence must show for some reason females cannot declare the word of God through the office of minister.
I Corinthians 14:34-40
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If any think they are prophets or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38Those who ignore this will themselves be ignored. 39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Scholars have many different viewpoints exactly what this passage is teaching. Most agree silence is limited according to its context. Silence cannot mean complete silence because earlier in the letter Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy (11:5). Many simply defend that prophecy is not a form of teaching, thus not contracting their stance women cannot be teachers of men according to I Timothy 2. But, prophets were above teachers in Paul’s time. (I Cor 12: 28) Though the roles of the OT and NT prophets were different, prophecy in the NT surely included revelation and instruction, thus prophecy in the NT meant women were involved in teaching type ministries. Women were allowed to pray or prophesize. (I Cor 11:5. I Cor 14:26, 39)
I Cor 14:34 says: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” Philip Payne makes an extremely strong case that I Cor 14: 34-35 is an interpolation. (Man And Woman, One in Christ) One can read Payne for a full defense. It would make sense these verses were inserted later by a scribe and the insertion continued to be copied in future manuscripts. For Paul to say that women should remain silent would contradict the rest of Chapter 14 where Paul numerous times gave instructions to all how to conduct their speech in the church to not be disruptive. Just in verse 26 Paul instructs men or women having a hymn, word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or interpretation how to exercise so the church is built up.
Even if I Cor 14:34-35 was penned by Paul, it can be argued a woman’s silence in the church is limited according to context. Silence cannot mean complete silence because earlier in the letter Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy. [11:5] Kaiser argues Paul is quoting from a letter sent to him by the Corinthians as he had in I Corinthians 6:12, 8:8, and 10:23. [Toward An Exegetical Theology, 76-77] Since the Old Testament Law says nothing about women being silent or subordinate, Paul if he wrote this would be referring to Jewish and oral law in verses 34-35 above. Paul is not claiming this to be his point of view, but he is responding to a question asked by the Corinthians. Paul is addressing a specific problem, mainly women interrupting in a disorderly fashion that creates confusion. In verse 30 Paul guided the first prophet to be silent if another person had a revelation. Paul is not insisting that this person never speak again. Paul is not urging women never to speak in the worship service; rather, he is teaching that there are appropriate times to be quiet so that everything can be done “in a fitting and orderly way.”[v.40].
I Timothy 2:11-15
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
It appears I Timothy 2:11-15 is the only passage in the NT that can be used to possibly support women not teaching or taking on positions of authority, but a deeper look will show this passage in no way contradicts other Scriptures that clearly empower women to teach and instruct. Paul’s letters to Timothy, that supposedly prohibits women from teaching in any church at any time in history, was addressed to a church where false teachers were effectively targeting women. A primary problem in Ephesus was false teaching. (I Tim. 1:3-20; 4:1-7; 6: 6-10, 20-21; 2 Tim. 2:16-26; 3:5-13; 4:3-4) Paul had already dealt with men who were false teachers [I Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17], and now he is turning his attention to the current situation involving false women teachers. Some women in fact had turned toward Satan (I Tim 5:15) as had some of the men. (I Tim 1:20) Rebecca Merrill Groothuis suggests:
If I Tim 2:11-15 can legitimately be understood as a prohibition relevant only for women in a historically specific circumstance (which it can), and if there is no other biblical test that explicitly forbids women to teach or have authority over men (which there is not), and if there are texts that assert the fundamental spiritual equality of women with men (which there are), then women who are not in the circumstance for which the I Tim. 2:12 prohibition was intended may safely follow whatever call they may have to ministry. In other words, it ought at least be acknowledged that the traditionalist interpretation is debatable on biblical grounds. This being the case, we should give the benefit of the doubt to any woman who is called to and qualified for pastoral leadership. (Good News For Women, 211)
It has been argued that I Tim 2:12 is a universal principle because of the reference to the creation account. “I do not permit a women to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet” is no more universal [I am not permitting] than women never wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothing in church. (v 9) If suggested this passage is universal and applies to all situations, to be consistent certain restrictions must be imposed on men. Men who may aspire to positions of church leadership cannot be single, childless, or married but with only one child. Also excluded are men married but who have children too young to profess faith, men married but who have one unbelieving child, men married whose children are believers but not respectful. (I Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6) Other passages advise singleness is the preferred status to do ministry often. (In Matt. 19:11-12 and I Cor. 7:25-32) There is a better explanation. Restrictions in Timothy were a remedial measure for churches that had fallen into a state of terminal crisis. It is relevant today for churches that have fallen into the same state.
Paul’s goal appears to be similar as in his letter to the Corinthians. The church should conduct themselves in a peaceful and orderly fashion so as to not be a stumbling block to those who yet did not believe in the message and resurrection of Christ. Paul had addressed men deceivers and turned his attention to women deceivers. Paul was seeing a replaying of the very thing that happened in the Garden. Eve submitted to satanic instruction concerning God’s word and then prevailed upon Adam to go along with the false view of God’s word that she heard from the serpent. Paul did not want the women to follow the fatal error of Eve. She must submit to instruction in true doctrine. Paul in verses 8-10 speaks of the behavior of men and women. Then in verse 11 he began speaking in the singular of a woman and a man. This continues until verse 15. Paul is thinking in terms of the story of the first woman and man, which he proceeded to recount in verses 13-14. This is the behavior Paul would “not permit.” Verse 15 reminds us that Eve was deceived but Mary heard and brought the Christ into the world.
We should not assume verses 11-12 are some prohibition against women participating in church roles. After all, Paul’s limit is about teaching, not an office such as an overseer. Payne argues that “to teach and have authority” in verse 12 likely conveys a single idea such as “assuming authority to teach” and not two different actions. “To assume authority” is the only confirmed meaning of authentein in Paul’s day…” (p 443) Paul’s goal is to restrict unauthorized women who were deceived but not authorized woman such as Priscilla. (2 Tim 4:19) Paul had already prohibited men from teaching false doctrine. (1:13, 20) Thus, Paul does not bar women from ministries that involve teaching and or having authority over men. Rather, when Paul said that a woman must neither teach or authentein over a man, he had in mind what the first woman did to the first man - prevailed upon Adam to go along with the false view of God’s word that she heard from the serpent. It is the repetition of the error of Eve that Paul disallowed, not a woman’s faithful exercise of her teaching and leadership gifts in the church body.
The organization Christians For Biblical Equality suggests appropriate applications for the church body regarding the above teachings.
In the church, spiritual gifts of women and men are to be recognized, developed and used in serving and teaching ministries at all levels of involvement: as small group leaders, counselors, facilitators, administrators, ushers, communion servers, and board members, and in pastoral care, teaching, preaching, and worship. In so doing, the church will honor God as the source of spiritual gifts. The church will also fulfill God's mandate of stewardship without the appalling loss to God's kingdom that results when half of the church's members are excluded from positions of responsibility.
In the church, public recognition is to be given to both women and men who exercise ministries of service and leadership In so doing, the church will model the unity and harmony that should characterize the community of believers. In a world fractured by discrimination and segregation, the church will dissociate itself from worldly or pagan devices designed to make women feel inferior for being female. It will help prevent their departure from the church or their rejection of the Christian faith.
Subordination And Marriage Roles
With any discussion of God’s views on women, one must consider what roles if any are taught when it comes to the marriage relationship. Does God place woman under the authority of man in the creation narrative (Gen. 1-3)? Is there a subordinate relationship suggested between the first couple, Adam and Eve, and thus in the marriage relationship? Most definitions of subordination include words such as authority, headship, or leadership, thus implying a hierarchical pattern. Those who defend subordination are careful so as to not degrade a woman’s value. One can understand though that hierarchical patterns can make one feel inferior and is certainly subject to abuse by the one in the authority role because of human nature. The argument that two in a relationship are equal but one has less authority doesn’t do much for slaves or women.
I understand subordination does not necessarily imply inferiority. One biblical example is the males of the Levitical house of Aaron were singled out to serve as priest (Ex 28:1-3), but this did not cause them to be superior to the other males of the Israel nation. God chose them for reasons other than superiority. The President of the United States and elected officials are in authority over myself, but this does not make me inferior to them. The questions though is does God ordain such a relationship between husband and wife. Does God describe different role functions for man and woman in the Old Testament, whether in the marriage relationship or other types of relationships? There are many differences between a husband and wife and a country and its President. First of all, it is only a dyad. Also, couples do not have to govern through laws nor make decisions such as whether to go to war against other countries. As I said earlier, I have been married over 25 years and not once have my wife and I had an impasse that couldn’t be solved through commonly know conflict resolution methods. I believe when you assume one must have final authority, you stifle creativity, foster dependency, and encourage possible abuse of authority.
Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
It would appear man and woman are given the same commands and responsibilities: (1) be fruitful and multiply; (2) fill the earth and subdue it; (3) have dominion over every living thing. A similar observation will be made from Genesis 3:16-19 concerning commands from God when we discuss that passage. We must argue from this text rulership over the earth was a task given both to man and woman. Hurley, who argues that subordination is present in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 correctly says: “the interpreter may not seek to read into the text any implications about the headship, subordination, or equality of the sexes. To make Genesis 1 speak to such issues is a matter of projection of prejudice rather than of extraction of textual meaning.” (200) Neither should we rule out the possibility of subordination later in the text because both sexes are to rule over the earth. One may be given more authority than the other.
Genesis 2:18-20
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Though man was created first, the biblical test suggest woman is on an equal level. She was to aid man in the tilling and keeping of the land. Most important for our discussion is to understand what is meant by Eve’s role as “helper.” The Hebrew word for helper (ezer) has two Hebrew roots, one to help and the other to be strong. The second meaning occurs thirteen out of the twenty-one instances. The Hebrew word for suitable (kenegdo) only occurs here in Genesis 2:18 and is translated in later Hebrew as “equal.” Thus, one many argue that the proper description of Eve in this passage is better rendered “a power or strength” equal to him rather than “suitable helper” (Kaiser, Ethics, 154 who cites R. Freedman, Woman, A Power Equal To Man, Biblical Archaeology Review 9, 1983). If this is the correct interpretation, Genesis 2:18 does not suggest God made Eve subordinate to Adam.
The Hebrew word “ezer” may still possibly be translated helper. The danger of such a translation is that the word “helper” for many implies subordination. This is doubtful in the Hebrew. “Ezer” is never used in the OT to describe a subordinate, only an equal or superior. The word is used to describe God helping Israel and people helping one another, often in a time of need. Hurley who defends subordination in Genesis 3:16 argues that “woman role as ‘appropriate helper’ does not carry with it an implication of subordination. She is the needed helper whom God supplies to end man’s loneliness and to work alongside him.” (209) We must question then those who argue that verse 18 establishes and defines the divinely determined role relationship. To suggest man was not created to help and be the helper of woman, but woman was created to help and be the helper of man reads too much of the English meaning of word “helper” into Genesis 2:18.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
There has been a great deal of debate over the meaning of “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” It is important to understand what is meant by the woman’s “desire” and whether man ruling over woman is a mandate or a prediction as a result of sin. Kaiser corrects two errors often made. The text warns of the woman’s tendency to turn toward her husband than God. Any sexual connotation behind the word normally translated “desire” is lacking. Secondly, Kaiser warns grammatically “he will rule” is a prediction about what will happen as a result of woman’s overdependence on man. This statement is not a God ordained mandatory injunction (he shall rule) for the proper ordering of domestic relations and family. Kaiser argues the correct translation is “and he will rule over you as a result of your turning to your husband and away from your dependence on God.” (Ethics, 205-206) Genesis 3:16 is part of God’s curse to humankind resulting from rebellion. It seems supporting man’s rulership is the exact opposite of God’s intention. Man will rule because of sin; God does not mandate it.
Also, we must be careful to not argue that Genesis 3 specifies role functions (i.e. man to work, women to bear children). The narrative does not say to Eve she would die, but naturally she would. All the statements addressed to Adam are equally applicable to Eve – for all men and women through sin brought death, toil, and weeds. Obviously, man will not suffer physical pain from childbirth. Thus, Howell argues: “…roles are primarily definitions of expected behavior taught by the particular culture. They are subject to change as the culture changes. Roles are not established by divine degree in creation in the way our gender identity is established.” (Equality And Submission In Marriage, 34)
Woman’s subordination to man is not found in Genesis 1-3. What appears to be on the surface is not the case when we take a closer look at the text. Like many who write on the topic of woman, I am not arguing whether subordination is before or after the Fall. Those who argue subordination is before the Fall insist on divinely determined role relationships ordained by God before the appearance of sin. Opponents who argue that subordination comes after the Fall argue subordination is a result of the curse and commanded by God. They might agree egalitarian relationships were God’s original intentions. One is hard press to find any other Old Testament passages that suggests subordination and it does not appears these passages in Genesis do as well. Nowhere is there mention of the headship or leadership of man over woman or husband over wife in terms of subordination. Certainly the Israelite family pattern was patriarchal, but this pattern does not appear to be mandated by God for all cultures. Shortly, we will consider whether the New Testament teaches woman’s subordination to man, and whether the New Testament writers interpret the Old Testament as teaching such an idea. It seems significant that the Old Testament in all likelihood does not teach woman is under the man’s authority. If we conclude the New Testament develops such a theme, it will be essential to understand why the New Testament writers develop such a view of men-women relationships.
Husbands And Wives
18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Instructions for Christian Households
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
The context is Paul’s ongoing discourse how Christ followers are to live their lives. In Ephesians 5:1-2 Paul says: “Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Paul then continues to speak on behaviors that imitate Christ. In Ephesians 5:21 mutual submission and servanthood is the model for all relationships. Verse 21 is closely linked to verse 22. In verse 22 in the original manuscripts, Paul literally says: “wives to your husbands as to the Lord.” The verb missing is supplied from verse 21 so the TNIV translates verse 22 “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” As Paul encourages members of the body to submit to one another, so ought the wife to follow such a model. The meaning of “submit” in verse 22 must be the same as in verse 21 where it refers to all Christians. If this passage is used to defend that wives are subordinate to their husbands, then we must also say church members are in subordination to one another (v.21). For these reasons I do not think Paul is speaking of the husband’s authority to which the wife must submit. Subordination is foreign to the context and submission is a way of life for all believers - husbands and wives alike. Furthermore, submission in verse 22 is defined in terms of respect (verse33), not obedience.
It seems likely wives were using their new freedom, implicit in their new Christian faith, to boss and perhaps their husbands were not loving them in return. Submission is specified more explicitly for the wives (5:22) but love is more specified explicitly for husbands (5:25). Wives should not interpret this to mean they are not to love their husbands. Husband should not interpret this passage to mean they should not submit to their wives. Submission and love are responsibilities of husbands and wives. Paul worked within the confines of the culture. But he is not advocating patriarchal marriage patterns any more than he is mandating household slavery (6:5-9). The call is for mutual submission. No text in Scripture enjoins wives to obey their husbands. Sarah obeyed her husband Abraham (I Peter 3:6), but Abraham obeyed his wife just as often as she obeyed him, once even under God’s specific command. (Gen 16:2,6; 21:11-12) In the only New Testament text where the word “authority” is used (in verb form) to describe husband and wife relations, husbands are not exempt from coming under the authority of their wives. A Christian wife has exactly the same authority rights over her husband as a husband has over his wife. (I Cor. 7:4) [Bilezikian 5,6]
The fact that the passage from 5:21-6:20 treats three errors in the practice of mutual submission by Ephesian church members makes this fact clear: Paul is not randomly inserting new rules here for husbands/wives, parents/children, and slaves/masters at all! Rather, he is simply taking up the incorrect practices of the Ephesians in these three areas as examples of their failings in the practice of mutual submission (Herb Drake, The Submission of Wives, magazine/ephesians5.html)
The translation of the word “head” (kephale) is not crucial to our understanding of the passage, as we have learned whatever the word means, it cannot mean men have certain authority over women. “Kephale” never meant leader or authority over in NT times and clearly doesn’t fit this context. A more common translation of “head” can mean source or enabler, one who brings another to completion. This meaning of “head” is supported by the context. It is Christ who acted to bring the church to its completion – holy and blameless. Paul frequently used the head-body metaphor to emphasize that all parts of the body relate to one another, not to emphasize the authority of the head over other parts of the body. As Christ intervened in order for man to reach his fullest potential in God, so ought the husband to help the wife reach her fullest potential. The context does not seem to be emphasizing Christ’s authority, but instead his self-sacrifice. Subordination is foreign to the context and as we stated earlier, submission is a way of life for all believers, husbands and wives alike.
…the head metaphor in Eph. 5:21. We use that as a metaphor in our own language and culture to mean “authority,” but it would be a serious mistake to jump to the conclusion that the first century culture used it the same way. Hebrew thinking people like Paul understood “head” in several contexts as is evidenced by the Hebrew word for head, which can mean “beginning” (See Gen. 1:1), as well as it can mean “leader.” The same meanings appear in the Greek word Paul used there, where “head” tends to mean the starting point from which something radiates outward through the truck and into the limbs. This idea is expressed again and again in Eph. 3, 4, and 5. God’s grace begins in Christ and then moves through Paul and to the church (Eph. 3:7-10). See also Eph. 4:7-16, where the “head” metaphor appears again to indicate Christ as the source of spiritual gifts. So, with this motive developed so strongly in prior chapters, we should not expect to find the “head” metaphor changes to mean “authority” in Chapter 5. It is better to see the “headship” of man over women in Eph. 5:23 as “source” (remember? the man was the source of woman in Gen.2:19-23 as Christ is the “source” of the church. (Drake, 3)
I Peter 3:1-7
1Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
This passage is addressed to women with husbands who are not Christians. Peter suggests wives are more likely to win their husbands over with a quiet and gentle spirit – actions often speak louder than words. This is a principle that seemingly holds true in other relationships as well. The submissive role is not some ideal position ordained by God from the beginning of creation. Submission becomes necessary because of sin. Christ’s death illustrates this point. (I Peter 2: 21-25) In this context submission becomes necessary because of unbelieving spouses, not because man possesses some inherent authority given to him by God. Often wives must submit because husbands are unwilling to submit to their wives. Husbands by nature demand rather than give. To teach women are to submit to husbands in a way husbands are not to submit to women in Christian marriages may only lead to more men “ruling over” their spouses.
Peter gives Abraham and Sarah as an example to illustrate the importance of submission. I Peter 3:6 says Sarah obeyed Abraham, possible in reference to Genesis 18 where Sarah was having a hard time believing she could have a child at her age though God promised to Abraham He would enable her to conceive. But, we see also Abraham was obedient to Sarah (Gen. 21:12). Peter is emphasizing the wife’s submission though, because this is the group he is addressing at the present time – wives of unbelieving husbands. The fact that Sarah called Abraham “lord” is probably more a title of respect than because of his authority. Sometimes it becomes necessary for wives to submit in order to reveal the splendor of God’s love. If the context were one of unbelieving wives and their husbands, Peter could use the same example of Abraham and Sarah to teach the necessity of submission on the husband’s part.
Verse seven says “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Peter could be referring to woman being weaker spiritually, morally, intellectually, physically, or weaker due to their position, which subjects them to abuse. This is true of anyone who submits to another. (cf. slaves in I Peter 2) The latter interpretation appears to be more correct in light of the context of submission. Those who submit are in a vulnerable or weak position. To say woman are weaker spiritually has no biblical support. Physical weakness does not fit the context here. The idea of submission is present here but God has not given man authority over woman.
Submission Not Subordination
One may get the impression that I am soured on submission. Honestly, I am not very good at it but the idea of submission is an important part of Paul’s theology and a Christian’s lifestyle. But subordination is not the same thing as submission, and to encourage women to be subordinate to men creates several dangers. To appoint man as authority over woman can encourage dominance on the man’s part and dependence on the woman’s part. This very thing is discouraged from a biblical viewpoint. A part of the curse in Genesis 3:16 was the warning that woman would depend more on man than God and man would try to rule the woman. This was a result of sin, not by God’s design. If all men loved their wives as Christ loved the church, there would be no problems. Only Christ was perfect and we are more likely to abuse authority. A system of mutual accountability is always a healthier pattern for marriages.
By emphasizing woman’s subordination and submission, we forget submission is a way of life for the entire community. (cf. I Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21; Rm. 13:5; etc.) Men and husbands are a part of that community. Seldom do we hear others encouraging husbands to submit to their wives. We do not need male leadership in marriage; we need unselfish men who have the heart of a servant (Eph. 5). Encouraging one-sided leadership often fosters dependency. One-sided submission in a relationship can lead to one ruling over the other. Many men will be to quick to assume an impasse in a marriage cannot be solved through normal conflict resolutions means, especially when they think they are to provide leadership through decision-making just because they are male. One prominent Christian leader was quoted as saying when asked if a man and woman have equal responsibility in marriage: “Yes, However, when there is a final decision that needs to be made and they can’t arrive at one, the man needs to take responsibility.” I would suggest when there is a final decision that needs to be made and a couple can’t arrive at one, allow the partner who has the most expertise with the matter at hand to make the final decision or some other creative manner. Husband and wives must both submit to one another. This is the environment less conducive for domestic abuse and the other atrocities women face at the hands of men in our society.
Again, Christians For Biblical Equality suggests appropriate applications for family and marriage roles taking into account the above teachings:
In the Christian home, husband and wife are to defer to each other in seeking to fulfill each other's preferences, desires and aspirations. Neither spouse is to seek to dominate the other but by one spouse imposing a decision upon the other. In so doing, husband and wife will help the Christian home stand against improper use of power and authority by spouses and will protect the home from wife and child abuse that sometimes tragically follows a hierarchical interpretation of the husband's "headship.” Each is to act as servant of the other, in humility considering the other as better than oneself. In case of decisional deadlock they should seek resolution through biblical methods of conflict resolution rather than by hierarchical means.
In the Christian home, spouses are to learn to share the responsibilities of leadership on the basis of gifts, expertise, and availability, with due regard for the partner most affected by the decision under consideration. In so doing, spouses will learn to respect their competencies and their complementarity. This will prevent one spouse from becoming the perennial loser, often forced to practice ingratiating or deceitful manipulation to protect self-esteem. By establishing their marriage on a partnership basis, the couple will protect it from joining the tide of dead or broken marriages resulting from marital inequities.
In the Christian home, couples who share a lifestyle characterized by the freedom they find in Christ will do so without experiencing feelings of guilt or resorting to hypocrisy. They are freed to emerge from an unbiblical "traditionalism" and can rejoice in their mutual accountability in Christ. In so doing, they will openly express their obedience to Scripture, will model an example for other couples in quest of freedom in Christ, and will stand against patterns of domination and inequality sometimes imposed upon church and family.
()
Conclusion
It would be simpler if the New Testament explicitly mentions that women can be teachers or ministers. I have argued that the New Testament doesn’t say that women cannot be teachers or ministers; it appears to be assumed. There were women leaders in the early church, but we do not know their exact function. Women were certainly visibly active in the church. There were women prophets. Women were allowed to pray in public or private worship. Churches today that allow only men to speak have no biblical justification for doing so. Prophecy was certainly one form of teaching, but some draw a distinction between prophecy and teaching by an elder. Such a distinction is not at all obvious in Scripture. Prophets certainly had as much authority during their time as New Testament teachers. I think God certainly approves of females fulfilling any role in the church if gifted. Determination of roles should be made on the basis of one’s gifts not sex.
Sometimes I Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 are used to teach that the husband is the authority or leader of his wife. We do not think this is Paul’s meaning in these two passages. I have said to encourage a husband’s authority or leadership over his wife can lead to dominance on the man’s part and dependency on the woman’s part. This is not true for all relationships, but it is the case for many relationships. Many men abuse their authority, others misunderstands how to carry it out. It is quite common for husbands to think they have the final say so in decision-making. I believe this creates more problems than it solves. Couples should have the freedom to relate without a subordinate relationship and feel they are being obedient to God. I argue against subordination for I believe it creates barriers for those of the faith and those not of the faith. Barriers should be removed if they are not necessary. Man-made as opposed to God-made barriers distort God’s intentions. I personally believe subordination is a dangerous alternative for many couples, unless we encourage both sides to submit to one another.
I Corinthians 14 is concerned with the orderliness of worship. Paul’s concern is that worship in the early church not be chaotic which turns away unbelievers who might otherwise be open-minded. God’s nature is one of peace than disorder (14:33). There appears to be a particular problem in the Corinth church and Paul sets out to correct the situation. Paul clearly argues for the participation of women in the church. I have suggested I Corinthians 14:34-35 was not likely penned by Paul but at the very least, women judging prophets was creating confusion for some particular reason and Paul encourages women to be silent in this particular instance.
Ephesians 5: 21-33 is the key passage for husband-wife relationships. I do not think Paul’s emphasis is on hierarchal positions. Instead, Paul challenges both the husband and wife to develop habits and characteristics pleasing to God. I Peter 3:1-7 is an important passage because it provides information on how a believing spouse should relate to an unbelieving spouse. Such a relationship is not God’s original intention, but often spouses come to Christ after a marriage or a believer marries an unbeliever hoping things will change. It is this kind of relationship I find the most dangerous in recommending subordination. Peter encourages respectful submission on the wife’s part. If Paul was addressing husbands with unbelieving wives, he would encourage the husbands to do the same. Subordination puts one in a vulnerable position. Submission is done from a position of strength, which is almost always more healthy for a person emotionally and spiritually.
I Timothy 2:8-15 is the most difficult passage of all. I have argued that even if this passage is used to teach women are not encouraged to teach under the present circumstances in the church during Paul’s time, this guideline does not necessarily extend to all other churches. One might suggest men not teach if they are recent converts and their wives have been diligent in learning the Scripture. This would be the only natural thing to do.
Let me suggest a few general guidelines that come out of my interpretation of Scripture on the role of women. First, a woman’s role in society should be based on one’s gifts, desires, and needs of those around her. Women should have the freedom to work in the business community, run for President, or work at home. Both spouses should take parenting responsibilities seriously. Individual couples should decide childcare arrangements. Too many guidelines without taking into account individual circumstances often become arbitrary on the part of the person enforcing or insisting on such guidelines. Secondly, a woman’s role in marriage should be the same as the husband – submitting to one another in love. Some women are more comfortable with a husband who is a strong leadership type. Women though must avoid looking to their husband as if He is God. God is our ultimate Sustainer. He is our perfect Partner. Many women are uncomfortable with a strong leadership style and yet feel compelled to live under such conditions because Scripture teaches it. God has not commanded an authority-subordinate relationship for couples. Partner must use common decision-making techniques that they use in other relationships. This will prevent men from “lording” over women when they have an impasse as well as prevent women from resenting their spouse or thinking their husband and not themselves are accountable to God for decisions made.
Finally, though the Bible does not explicitly state women can be elders or deacons, I cannot think of any reason why they cannot function in such a role if so gifted. Half the church population is female. The argument that teaching has an inherent authority not intended by God for women to hold over men is not very convincing. Anyone is capable of teaching false doctrine. Why would God through Paul allow women to teach other women and children but not men? The issue is those gifted by God should teach. It is not a gender matter. Many have suggested Scripture prohibits women from teaching in a worship service. It is suggested Scripture does not prohibit women from teaching bible studies or from being a missionary. Frankly though, if one is going to be consistent in their view that women are not to teach or have authority over men, women should be prohibited from teaching mixed classes anywhere or going to the mission field since ultimately they will need to teach men. I have not insisted on women ministries in all churches if circumstances would suggest this would not be conducive for others coming to know our great God. The same consideration should be given though whether men ministers are the wisest choice in certain churches.
Appendix I - A Brief Explanation To God, Evil, and Suffering
God’s ways are comprehensible because we are made in His image, just as a parent’s way makes sense to children in time. God is surely rational and relational. God came in the flesh so we might better understand Him. Questions dismissed as unanswerable are answerable. Understanding God, suffering and evil may be simple, just hard to accept. If our hearts and minds are open, God’s ways should not drive people to unbelief or despair. God’s ways draw us closer to Him, as do the ways of loving parents. God is the perfection of the human parents we always desired
God does not cause evil. Evil and suffering happen because God created humans with freedom of choice, but we choose to love or hate. The only way God can totally stop evil is to not create or constantly override human decisions. Most agree forced love is neither authentic nor desirable. God, because of who He is, ultimately permits every evil act but evil is some grand scheme by God! Suffering results from either personal or natural evil. Death and sickness is normal in a world ruined by sin. According to the Bible death and suffering are only temporary intruders in a once-perfect world. God didn't promise to keep us from sin; God promised to save us from sin.
God being in control does not mean there no surprises, no disappointments, nothing going contrary to His will. Believing God is controlling one’s suffering can lead to focusing on “why or what is God punishing me for.” Tragedy is hard enough without wondering if God is out to get you or “God, do you really love me?” God does not lose control because sufferings are not caused or controlled by Him. It can be more comforting that God does not cause our suffering, that God grieves when we suffer, that not even God avoided suffering though He could have, that God will walk hand-in hand with us through any tragedy and work to bring some good from it (though he does not orchestrate evil to accomplish this), that God promises an end to suffering as He has conquered death.
Why doesn’t God at least prevent more suffering? One of the worst sufferings I can imagine is a young child being abused. No child deserves to be abused, so God's interference requires stopping all abuses. This would make a mockery out of freedom. God not interfering with suffering may be necessary to change more of the world by its own volition. It isn’t always wise to prevent our children from suffering consequences, whether self-inflicted or the result of a fallen world. Suffering enables us to not fall in love with temporal existence and love what the world offers. We are more likely to look to God, who desires our everlasting happiness, during adversity than prosperity. God allows suffering as a megaphone to distract us from our own selfishness.
Also, witnessing miracles in the lives of others only turns heads. Jesus' own sufferings are what really changed the hearts of others. Did Martin Luther King have to suffer to move the scales from the eyes of many how they tolerated bigotry? Personal tragedies or undeserved suffering can make us more sensitive to others. God allows suffering as a megaphone to enable us to better serve others. One can understand though how God’s intended acts of healings behind the scenes may not always be perceived as loving, thus it requires trust.
Appendix II - God Forbid Certain Disputable Images Of God Drive People To Unbelief And Despair: Brief Excerpts on God, Evil, and Suffering
How we answer “why, God?” in times of distress is critical to our relationship with God. Our belief about God’s role in times of evil and suffering often determines whether we push God away or accept God’s help during the crisis. The answer to “Why, God” when it comes to issues such as evil or suffering is not all that complicated. The chaos we are in is because of the freedom God allows humans. We have brought this mess on ourselves. Humans interfere with others’ freedom for their own selfish reasons; God does not act like humans in a world full of evil and suffering. But, God has not abandoned us.
• God did not create evil or suffering for some grand purpose; evil and suffering resulted when we opposed His magnificent purpose for us. God did not secretly plan a rebellion against Himself in the beginning, so He could ride in on a white horse and save the world. Evil is not some grand scheme by God!
• God does not cause evil or suffering. If there is to be genuine freedom, there must be the opportunity to love as well as to hate. Evildoers cause much of suffering, directly or indirectly, thus suffering inflicted by others is a by-product of freedom. God does work to bring some good out of what was intended for evil (Rom 8:28), but this does not mean God orchestrates evil to accomplish this. God, because of who He is, ultimately permits every evil, but this doesn’t mean every evil permitted by God is necessarily for a greater purposes. God works with all the choices made by humans
• God one time destroyed all the evil in the world and started over. It just grew back. Apparently, where there is a will there is evil.
• God understood the potential for such evil by creating humans, but this does not make Him the originator or predestinator of evil, any more than human parents are to blame for their children’s sins by birthing them in the world. Evil could only have been avoided if God had not created or at least not given humans the freedom to choose.
• God risked creating humans for the possibility of Intimacy! God’s risk is no more insane than a parent who chooses to have a child born in an already corrupt world where freedoms exist. God at least initially brought children into a perfect world where corruption and death did not exist. We human parents bring children into an imperfect world, knowing they could commit some evil act or experience evil at the hands of others at some time in their life. We know the inevitable truth that they will experience death. I am convinced though as an earthly father that love is worth the risk. God, like humans, obviously felt the potential joy that comes from having a mutual, satisfying relationship was worth the risk of hardships that could result where one is free to not reciprocate one’s love. Would we have preferred God not risked by creating humans?
• It would appear God wasn’t desirous of forced relationships anymore than humans are. God, too, took relationship risks for desired intimacy. If God didn’t allow freedom, we would just accuse Him of creating robots. Whether our theology likes it or not, things happen not according to God’s will because of freedom. It isn’t heresy to assume that not even God can create life in its very essence, impossible to exist without death, violence, suffering and struggle and yet there be genuine free will. God can’t force genuine love.
• The problem may be that we do not accept how God has chosen to respond to evil. God’s ultimate response to evil is the slow, necessary way of the Incarnation. God may intervene through the miraculous though this is hardly the norm. God’s response to evil is not to destroy the evildoer instantly or impose His will immediately, but God will bring justice eventually. God has not chosen instance justice but mercy and justice in the long run.
• God doesn’t always interfere with evil because of His Character! He does not destroy at the first hint of evil; He perseveres in hopes of change. God’s ultimate response to evil is the slow, necessary way of the Incarnation. In an attempt to change the world and turn as many people as possible from evil, God sacrificed His Son to account for our sin, to serve as our moral example, and to offer freedom life after death.
• Spiritual apathy is the human plague. What could be the possible explanation for why some of us do not consider the claims from a man who came back from the dead, which is defensible as a historical, reliable, event? Often, we do not consider the most important matters in life until we face a crisis. Having pleasures seems to only wet the appetite for more pleasures, often at the expense of others. Is the world better if God stopped all suffering or in hard times do people finally have a spiritual wake-up call
• One may argue that only if we could see God in action like we do our earthly parents, it may be easier to trust and understand Him. That is suspect though. The Israelites saw miracle after miracle and still struggled. Seeing does not always mean believing.
• God permitted both human and physical nature to run its course, but this does not mean God caused personal or natural evil. Freedom gone awry caused progressive deterioration of the physical world as it did human nature. Instead of caring for the land, we exploit and destroy nature by pollution of air and water and other acts of destruction to the soil and vegetation. We cannot easily link all natural disasters directly to some human action, but we often underestimate the impact of freedom gone array on physical nature
• Apparently, suffering was a necessary consequence of rebellion against God and absolutely necessary to preserve freedom. This explanation seems more likely than suggesting God preplans all suffering. Sometimes, we experience more than our share of suffering. This is especially true for those in foreign counties dieing of starvation on a daily basis. The fact that God gave up control for the cause of freedom does not mean that justice is not served eventually, that He does not grieve, that He does not suffer as well, or that He does not intervene. When God came down from heaven in the person of Jesus, He proved He would do anything to oppose our rebellion.
• Why did we have to be thrown out of the Garden? Would there have been the necessary dependence on God sought if there were no consequences. God had to do what was necessary to get our attention that the path of destruction is where we all are headed without dependence on God. Sometimes, even earthly parents must should tough love.
• We demand independence from God and when He gave it to us, we bitch at Him.
Appendix III - Why I Believe God Has Not Foreordained Evil
Some believe they protect the integrity of God by defending that nothing happens outside the will of God. Thus, evil must be explained to somehow be within the will of God. To the contrary, things do happen outside the will of God. Evil is not the will of God. Evil is something God has permitted by allowing freedom, but this doesn’t make God the author of evil any more than parents are responsible for the evil of children they birth into this world. Some endorse God foreordained evil to protect His sovereignty, while suggesting human responsibility remains intact. To suggest God foreordained evil is not necessary to protect the sovereignty of God. I believe an examination of Scriptures will bear this out.
So many biblical passages speak of freedom. God from the very beginning of time has given us the freedom to obey Him or not. Choices are not predetermined. Genesis 2: 16-17 says: “And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Practically every chapter in the Gospel of John shouts of the freedom to choose or deny God’s salvation, which ultimately is the decision to do good or evil. The most well known verse in the Bible is similar to hundreds if not thousands of verses in Scriptures that shout the freedom God has given humans to choose or deny Him. “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) The biblical authors gave no hint that they believed God had foreordained choices. Because we rebel against God’s will on a daily basis, only an all-powerful God doesn’t lose control. Certainly, God does sometimes intervene for purposes we may not understand, but God does not foreordain or tempt anyone with evil. Does the Bible anywhere contradict the clear teaching of James, the brother of Jesus?
When tempted, no one should say ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone, but each one is tempted when you are dragged away by your own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (James 1:13-15)
When the Israelites were attempting to escape from Egypt, did God cause Pharaoh to do evil to accomplish His purposes? Several times the writer says: “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” (Ex 9:12) Does God make it impossible for one to obey Him, but hold them responsible for their actions? Many passages indicate God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but there are just as many references that Pharaoh hardened his own heart and refused to listen to God. “Yet, Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord said.” (Ex 7:13) Why would the writer include the idea of Pharaoh refusing to listen if he didn’t Pharaoh could listen to God and obey? Pharaoh was not foreordained to disobey. Pharaoh chose to rebel. Pharaoh hardened his own heart several times. God is not the author of evil. God did not have to persuade Pharaoh to disobey; Pharaoh disobeyed on his own accord. Self-hardening happens by continuing to rebel and not repent.
Biblical Passages Seemingly Suggesting God Causes Evil
There are other passages that at first reading may seem to contradict all the passages that clearly imply evil exists because God gave freedom. We discussed briefly above that it is reasonable to read the text regarding God hardening Pharaoh’s heart without suggesting God causes humans to commit evil. I discuss John 9:3 in the chapter on suffering. In John 9:1-3 Jesus advised his audience as Job did his friends:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in him.’
Jesus mainly was defending against the notion that all sufferings can be traced to personal sin – in this case the parents. This is what Job friends assumed about Job’s ailments and they were corrected. Jesus was responding to the disciples’ specific question regarding whose sin caused the man’s blindness. The disciples wanted to blame someone. Jesus clearly stated that this man’s blindness was not punishment by God for the actions of the parents or individuals. Jesus also states even in tragedy God can bring about good (“but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in him.”) We should not conclude from this passage God causes this man’s blindness just so God can have the opportunity to do some great work. The Bible as a whole does not defend God is the originator of all of suffering or that all of suffering is some elaborate scheme by God so He can do good works. The writer is only implying God can bring good from hardships.
Proverbs 16: 4 says: “The Lord works out everything for its proper end – even the wicked for a day of disaster.” Does this passage contradict the rest of Scriptures that clearly suggest it is humans that choose evil, not God? God knew of the possibility of evil and plan accordingly, but God did not intentionally created some to purposely do evil so He could punish them. In the same context Proverbs 16:6 says: “through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided.” There is no suggestion that certain men cannot avoid evil because God has foreordained them to commit evil. Ecclesiastes 7:14 says: “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as the other. Therefore, you cannot discover anything about your future.” Again in the same context Ecclesiastes 7:17 says: “Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool - why die before your time.” In passages suggested that God is the originator of evil, one notices in the same breath the writer also argues to avoid evil. This seems nonsensical if the author is aware certain men cannot avoid evil because God has a stronghold on them. Clearly, both passages are in line with the thousands of other passages that assume freedom. God does not cause man to commit evil. God does not lose control when humans disobey him. These passages teach us God is so powerful that He will use evil choices to bring about good. Jesus’ death is the supreme example of God’s work in a world full of evil.
Biblical Passages Implying The Future Is Open
Beside the evidence of freedom that clearly suggests God does not foreordain human choices, there are other biblical passages that just don’t make sense if God indeed foreordains all of the future. The best way to do justice to passages speaking of God grieving is to make the assumption that the future is open. Genesis 6: 5-6 says: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” Why would God regret something He knew or had intended all along as part of His plan? Clearly, the fall of man was not a predetermined action by God. Because then we would have to suggest God’s predetermined actions grieve Him. Understanding the future is not predetermined gives integrity to the biblical passages that speak of God grieving (i.e. I Samuel 15: 11,35; Ps 78:40; Jer 42:10; Ezekiel 6:9). An open future does more justice to passages that speak of God’s emotions, including happiness or anger (Luke 15:7, Micah 3:1-4). God appreciates and responds to the events of our lives as they happen.
God’s response to true repentance is another example that the future is open and dependent on our prayers as well as the choice people make. “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (Exodus 32:14) This is only one of numerous passages where Scriptures states God intended to take certain actions but did not after prayer or repentance. Neither God’s actions nor the future is predetermined. In Number 14 God fully intended to strike down the Israelites with a plague because of their rebelliousness, but God forgive them at the request of Moses. (verses 12, 20) Time and time again God relented or change His mind based on one’s prayer or change in one’s actions. (Genesis 18:23-32; Deut 9:13-20; 2 Kings 20:1-6; Amos 7:1-6; Ps 106:41-46; Jer 26:1-3; Joel 2:12-14; Jonah 3:9)
Biblical prophecy is not simply God looking into the future to explain what is going to happen. God’s knowledge is unfathomable. God can hear and see everything that is happening all at once. God can even hear our thoughts not spoken audibly. God’s power is amazing. He created the heavens and the earth; He caused a virgin to be pregnant. This explanation of God preserves freedom and a bigger God than One who is just peering in the future and relaying what is going to happen. God knows each being intimately as well as all alternatives available. (I Sam 16:7; Ps 94:11; Ps 139:2-4; Mt 10:30) God has the power to bring about certain things that don’t violate freedom such as Jesus’ resurrection. Also, many prophecies are based on certain conditions, whether God’s people would obey or disobey. This may be the case though not said explicitly with many biblical prophecies. Ezekiel was called by God (Ezek. 2:3-5), but God warned Ezekiel of the dire consequences of neglecting his responsibilities as a prophet, which indicates that he could have done so. (Ezek. 3:16-21) God says about Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew (chose) you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."(1:5) Jeremiah still resisted and ultimately could have not following God’s will for His life. (v.6)
Rice writes on God’s foreknowledge:
The Greek New Testament speaks of God as “foreknowing” three times (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Pet. 1:20, as having “foreknowledge” two times (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2), and as “predestining” or “deciding beforehand” four times (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5). In each instance, the word refers to some aspect of salvation history as the fulfillment of a preexistent plan. And the use of such expressions as “before the foundation of the world” (I Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:4), and “before the ages” (I Cor. 2:7) indicates that the plan existed as early as Creation. (83)
The choice for evil has been a choice of humans since the beginning of creation. God allowed for the possibility for evil through freedom. And if we chose evil, God preexistent plan was to send His Son. Read the above passage again and see if the writers didn’t seem to have in mind Jesus as the solution. God’s foreknowledge specifies what His intentions are through Christ to offer hope to those who desire His help. God doesn’t destined one to certain evil choices so He can accomplish His will. God is not limited by the choices we make. God is never caught off guard; God is never powerless to bring about what He promises.
Based on the above passages considered thus far, it would not be surprising if God actual expressed hope of something happening that did not come to fruition. Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20 says:
During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it… "I myself said, " 'How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.' I thought you would call me 'Father' and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel," declares the LORD.”
God actual thought or hoped that something may happen that didn’t. Exodus 4:8-9 says: Then the LORD said, "If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground.” These passages and others do not pose a problem if one does not assume all of the future is determined or known. (i.e. Exodus 13:17-18; Ezek 12:1-3; Isaiah 5:3-7; Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35) God certainly has an unfathomably knowledge based on His exhaustive knowledge of people and their thoughts. With God’s omnipotence (unlimited power, authority, influence) and omnipresence (He can be everywhere at the same time all the time), one can imagine how God does not loss control though the future is open. This is what makes Him God. But, the Bible does not suggest God has foreordained the future, and that God is simply peering into a future already determined so He can predict the future.
Conclusion
When there are sincere differences among those loyal to God, is there wisdom in choosing the viewpoint that makes God less mysterious, more understandable, less associated with evil, more morally logically? God did not foreordain evil. Many theologians who argue again Open Theology will often explain their own viewpoints as God permitting evil. Are the viewpoints really that different? God permitted the freedom to rebel; He had a plan for rebellion if necessary; He chose to bring good out of evil if humans rebelled. There are too many biblical passages to list that assume humans have the freedom to choose good or evil.
There are some passages that at first reading seem to suggest God may ordain evil, but there are defensible, plausible interpretations that do not make God the author of evil. If God foreordained evil, why does Scripture repeatedly tell us to fight against evil? Are Christ followers to constantly fight against God’s will? God said in the beginning it was good. (Genesis 1:31) Was God though scheming all along to make it bad with evil to somehow make Himself look good? Evil resulted from disobedience. The Fall did not catch God off guard. God knew of the possibility of evil as a result of allowing freedom and permitted it. Thank God He was capable of responding powerfully with a plan. God could have destroyed us. He could have abandoned us. Instead, God set out to conquer evil, which He ultimately did through the birth, life, death and resurrection of His Son.
Appendix IV - Confessions of a Skeptic
I am a skeptic when it comes to spiritual matters regarding God’s ways and His true character, but not in the way skepticism is typically thought of. I was taught to believe God was the Creator of the Earth and humankind. I was taught to believe the Scriptures were reliable, historical documents for when Adam and Eve lived all the way to after Jesus was born, raised, crucified, and resurrected. I believe without a doubt that the Bible was written by inspired authors through God’s supernatural guidance. I am confident in how the Canon formed, and that the books we have today in the Bible were intended by God to be His communication and guide to use. I just never had any doubts about these matters though admittedly, I have fallen way short of living up to God’s guiding principles for living and treating others.
But, I am skeptical of certain viewpoints concerning the nature and ways of God. I grew up in churches that sincerely believed that the Bible taught God intended men to be leaders of their families as opposed to servants within a relationship of mutual submission and that women were not to be pastors and teachers over men. I was taught that a biblical view of God’s sovereignty required that He foreordained evil and suffering but somehow held humans responsible for their choices. I was taught that the doctrine of election required that God elected some for heaven thus excluded others, but somehow the unelected were responsible for rejecting God.
This is when my skepticism began. I began studying all these aspects of God’s nature because what I was being taught about the Bible, my relational and common senses screamed out otherwise. Many writers will advise their interpretation about an aspect of God is difficult to understand or to explain based on human logic. An antinomy is defined as an incompatibility of thought or language. I am slow to buy into the antinomy solution that suggests that some of God ways are biblical defensible, though perhaps incomprehensive or rational to human senses. I believe it is reasonable to expect God’s ways to make logical sense to the human mind. God’s ways are more comprehensible than incomprehensible. God seemingly purposely oversaw the preservation of His spoken word, the Bible, so we might better understand Him. If our minds and hearts are open, our understanding about God’s ways should draw us closer to Him, not confuse or drive us away. When I meet God I will understand His way completely. I am sure I will be completely satisfied as I haven’t ever meet anyone I believe to be as merciful and just.
I worry that some who are genuinely interested in knowing more about God may shun him based on certain well meaning but possible wrong explanation of God’s nature. In the past I had a hard time explaining supposed characteristics of God. It was almost as if God couldn’t be understood by the common senses; I had to tell others to just accept certain aspects of God to be true by faith though illogical. Personally, I would have been willing to accept God blindly if necessary. God no longer had to prove Himself to me. As it turns out, I am convinced God makes perfect sense to all seeking a personal relationship with Him. God makes sense to our rational senses; we don’t have to assume God is a mystery not to be understood but only accepted.
I admit I feel very strongly about the viewpoints I have written about, but I understand there are sincere, godly men and women who hold opposing views. I just believe when there is debate concerning the meaning of the biblical text and interpretation regarding the nature of God, we should lean toward the viewpoint that seems less of a stumbling block to Christians and especially to those seeking a relationship with God. We should hesitant to adopt teachings about the nature of God, which don’t seem in character with a loving God. Such viewpoints may be incorrect and discourage others pursuing God.
What we understand about God’s nature, and thus His character, can greatly influence our relationship and intimacy with our Creator. The defense of God’s character is critical. I understand many people turn away from God for selfish reasons and not because of some confusion about His character. Certain stumbling blocks in the Bible such as the Messiah coming as a servant rather than a ruler is not confusing to the mind, only the heart. Frequently though, people will avoid getting to know God or struggle in their relationship with God because of what they believe or have been taught about His nature. Why follow or seek wisdom from One who you do not respect or trust? Why doesn’t God overwhelm all evil with His power? Why doesn’t God prevent world hunger or child abuse? Answers to these questions can impact one’s pursuit of a relationship with God. God forbid that one person does not pursue God because of certain teachings about His nature that can be disputed in the Bible.
Appendix V - A Model To Explain God’s True Nature Is Necessary
Many believe God inspired the biblical writers to understand and write His truths to their audiences, but such teachings were written in languages other than our own and written thousands of years ago in a different culture. God’s intended meaning by the author is not always easily discernable. When two interpretations are possible, agreed upon hermeneutical practices or word studies do not always solve the debate. For instance, some state certain biblical passages imply unconditional immortality after death (live forever) for the wicked; others believe the Bible suggests annihilation after death (i.e. Romans 6:23). Does God allow the wicked to finally perish, or does He keep the wicked alive to inflict endless pain? Most humans would not even persecute their enemies to this extent. If certain characterizations of God are uncertain, one must decide on a model that best explains an almighty God’s love for His creations.
Certain characterizations about God’s character cannot always be determined with exegesis. Personal assumptions must be accounted for when attempting to explain God. Assumptions cannot always be proved or disproved. For instance, I believe acts cannot both be free and knowable. Certain future events such as death for all are inevitable. I am not convinced God would hold humans accountable unless their decisions were free. Secondly, I believe God’s ways are more comprehensible and logical than seemingly incomprehensible and irrational. God appears to have put a big priority on communicating through the written word so that we might understand Him better. Thirdly, since humans are made in God’s image, I believe God’s morality can be understood by comparing what His actions would mean on a human level. God’s expectations of morality are not just for us but Him as well. God has no problem being answerable to us humans. God is the Creator and we are the created, but God in human form through Jesus was our perfect role model. Final judgment and punishment is something only God is capable of doing justly, but His actions would be moral from a human viewpoint. The opposite of the above philosophical beliefs seem less credible logically and do not convey the relational aspect of God that I think is so critical. As long as the do not contract Scriptures, I believe they are the best alternative.
There are at least two models that explain God’s sovereign nature, thus His character. Traditional theists suggest God predetermines the future, or that God knows all of the future before it happens. Traditionalists suggest this does not undermine human freedom but that divine sovereignty and human freedom work together in ways humans can’t always comprehend. Traditionalists are careful to not suggest God doesn’t know the future for this implies God is not all-powerful. Open theists suggest the Bible’s emphasis is much more on God’s openness than deciding history and actions in advance. Open theists suggest that if God knows all of the future then there really cannot be genuine human freedom. Open theists suggest God does not know the future because it has not happened, so God is still all-powerful.
Open Theology appears to be the more logical view and best describes and attracts others to God’s relational nature. God not knowing the future, because the future is open, best accounts for various biblical texts and the integrity of human freedom and responsibility is preserved. God’s will does not always happen but the freedom God has purposely given humans is the best way to account for this fact. This is a far better explanation of evil and suffering than the alternative traditional view that evil and suffering are somehow a part of God’s original plans for humankind. The biggest challenge for open theists is biblical prophecy but there are sufficient explanations. Is God simply peering into the future and relaying what is going to happen. Any god can do that! Open Theology is sometimes referred to as heresy unfortunately, but both views have the underlying motive to protect God’s image. Both views believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired; therefore, the Bible is a trustworthy guide in understanding what God’s opinion is of Himself. All things equal, we should choose the viewpoint that is most satisfying from a relational standpoint.
Our model or assumptions guide us, since word meanings do not always answer our final questions about God’s true character. I have chosen a model that I believe most would identify what a loving God would be like. John 3:36 says: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” Does God’s wrath really send people to death or is God’s wrath about lifestyle choices currently made. There are two very opposing ways to view God’s love – a relational versus more of a legalistic view of God’s love. I believe it is important to see God more as a parent than judge. God is a father/mother who cares for us, not a judge criticizing from a distance. God’s love is center stage, not His wrath. If God is angry it is because He loves us and has our best interest in mind. God’s wrath is not an inherent part of His nature but a reaction because of His love when confronted with sin. God judges our sin but wants to have mercy (Romans 11:3). If there is a final refusal to repent, God’s judgments will mean a final judgment, though that is not what He wants. God accuses us and exposes us but only in order to defeat evil in us. God certainly does judge nations and individuals, but His judging has the character of mercy.
We all have a model based on our interpretations, so it is critical to understand its implications for those who do not have a relationship with God. Is God an angry Judge or a seeking Parent? Does God seek a legal settlement or a restored relationship? Is the cross about a payment or freedom from sin and death? Is God obsessed with the guilt of our sins or the restoration of our relationship with Him? Does God have to be placated before He can love us? Certain views of God may drive people to unbelief and further despair. God loved us when we were yet sinners; He did not have to have judgment before loving us. God’s love is a caring love, a kind of love we would expect from godly human parents. Godly love is unconditional and sometimes tough for our own good. God is not a representation of our earthly parents but the perfection of human parents we all desire.
Appendix VI - Open Versus Traditional Theism: Does God Know The Future?
What is the debate all about? Open and traditional theists have differing opinions about God when it comes to knowing the future, though both sides convey the utmost love and respect for the Creator of the universe and a desire to protect His character. Open theists advise God cannot know the unknowable future. Open theists believe this is the best interpretation of the biblical text and preserves the integrity of human freedom and responsibility. Open theists have suggested if God knows the future ahead of time, then decisions cannot be genuinely free. If all acts are known in the past, they are not free in the future. If decisions are not free and humans could not decide to the contrary, how can there be legitimate human responsibility? The biggest challenge for open theists is how can God guarantee anything in the future that involves the free decisions of humans, if a human can always choose to the contrary up until the final decision? Many prophecies involved future, individual choices being made.
Traditional theists suggest to defend God doesn’t know the future is to limit God or make Him less powerful and is not the best biblical account. Some traditionalists argue that God knows the future but does not predetermine the future. Such traditionalists may suggests God has middle knowledge - knowing what a free creature would do in any given circumstances - thus not violating a human choice to choose. Most traditionalists who have reacted against open theists seem to hold more to the view that God preordained all of the future in the beginning. God both foreknows and foreordains the future, which includes evil. Such traditionalists admit there are unsolvable mysteries in explaining how divine sovereignty and human responsibility are always compatible. It is this viewpoint that I will argue against from a biblical viewpoint. The main challenge for traditionalists is explaining how God is not evil if He preordains evil actions.
It is not uncommon for many traditional theists to argue not just that God knows the future but God has preordained or determined the future, even evil acts, but unexplainably humans and not God are responsible for such actions. Open theists explain evil in terms of wrong choices made by God’s free creatures. This view doesn’t explain all evil because natural evils such as hurricanes are not the result of individual moral evil. But, the traditional view that God causes evil, rather than God uses evil to bring good, is difficult to understand must less explain to others how this does not make God the tempter of evil contrary to Scriptures (i.e. James 1:13; I John 1:5). Traditionalists may refer to these matters as insolvable mysteries. Traditionalists seem leery of applying the test of common sense or human logic, but then they sometimes refer to problems with their views as tensions or unsolvable mysteries. This implies their views don’t seem logical. Traditionalists suggest the things of God cannot always be understood or we cannot reduce God to the way human acts or believe, but one must admit this view of evil for the majority seems morally and emotionally indefensible.
Isn’t it possible God can still be omniscient (all knowing) and not know the future, if the future is not knowable? Then, we would no longer need to argue God knows the unknowable to protect His character. He is superior to humans in knowing all the possibilities of decisions that can be made by others and what He will do. God is everywhere in the universe at the same time, so His knowledge is unimaginably extensive. With God’s omniscience (complete knowledge) and His omnipotence (unlimited power, authority, influence), one can imagine how God does not loss control though the future is open. This is what makes Him God. This view of God’ s knowledge gives integrity to the Bible when it speaks of God grieving or rejoicing, when it speaks of the freedom to obey God or not, when it speaks of God relenting or changing His mind. We can have confidence God appreciates and responds to the events of our lives as they happen. God will in all things work for the good of those who love him. (Romans 8:28)
What we understand about God’s nature and thus His character can greatly influence our relationship and level of intimacy with our Creator. The depth of our understanding and level of respect can have profound implications as it does with human relationships. I know this issue doesn’t concern all spiritual minded or seeking persons, but for many it speaks to the very essence of who God is. We must understand God for who He truly is so our choice to enter a relationship with Him or not is for the right reason. Christians must not put up any unnecessary stumbling blocks between a person and God. Genuine freedom goes to the very heart of God. God does not force anyone to love Him; instead, God desires a mutual, intimate relationship with us. I am convinced this characteristic of God also can transform parent-child relationships. After all, if God as our heavenly Parent isn’t controlling why would an earthly parent, who is not perfect, think for one minute this is the way to parent.
I do not believe a fixed future is required from a biblical perspective. Throughout Scriptures, God gives His creations the freedom and choice to listen to His wisdom or not. God’s answer to the question about the future through His written words to us carries more weight than human answers or reasoning. This paper is not meant to be an exhaustive view. I hope to keep this short enough that others may read it and further study this issue if so prompted. I will select those passages that seem to most clearly suggest the future is knowable or not. Open theists have been accused of not dealing with some of the difficult passages below, thus one main reason for this brief defense. Many godly people have differing views on the below passages. If Christians cannot discuss kindly and love one another in spite of their differences, this is not godly love and a stumbling block for those seeking to understand our Creator. I am not aware of one biblical passage that asks and answers directly the question - “God, do you know all of the future?” Several passages seem to provide insight into God’s knowledge of the future.
God’s Emotions
Many passages speak of God grieving, so the natural assumption is that the future is open. Why would God grieve over something He already knew was going to happen? But, the argument can be made that humans know their loved ones are going to die at sometime in the future, but they still grieve. Genesis 6: 5-6 says: “The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.”(All Bible quotations are from the TNIV version) This passage and similar passages are difficult to explain by traditionalists who argue God preordained or planned for evil and the fall of man before it actually happened. Do God’s predetermined actions grieve Him? This seems nonsensical if the writer of Genesis understood that God had preordained the Fall. Understanding the future is open gives integrity to the biblical passages that speak of God grieving or regretting some of His actions (i.e. I Samuel 15: 11, 35; Ps 78:40; Ezekiel 6:9). An open future does more justice to passages that speak of God’s emotions, including happiness or anger (Luke 15:7, Micah 3:1-4). It appears God appreciates and responds to the events of our lives as they happen.
God’s Freedom
God from the very beginning of time has given us the freedom to obey Him or not. Our choices are not predetermined. Of course, God’s desire for obedience to His ways is always in our best interest. Genesis 2: 16-17 says: “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’" Deut. 30:19 says: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” The choice to follow God or other gods has always been an individual choice (i.e. Joshua 24:15, I Kings 18:21, Ezekiel 33:13-15). The most well-know verse in Scripture shouts our freedom: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Thus, God actions are dependent upon man’s choices to obey or not as suggested in Jeremiah:
“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’” (18:7-11)
Freedom passages such as the above are seemingly on every page of Scriptures and declare the future is open. Certainly, there are always limitations on human freedom depending on when and where you are born or significant influences in your life, but Scriptures seem abundantly clear the choice to choose good or evil or between God or gods is real. There may be even a limitation to choose to the contrary once one has engaged in rebellious behaviors for some time. There can be a self-hardening in evil (i.e. Pharaoh). Sometimes, God did guarantee Israel would be the victor in war in defeating their enemy, but Israel only attached those nations that rebelled against God’s civilized ways. God always gives individuals and nations the opportunity to change from their evil ways, but patience must have a limit or justice is never served and change may never occur. The Bible is abundantly clear though that humans determine their own future with the significant freedom they have to make choices. Must we interpret literally thousands of passages in light of a few passages that suggest at first reading God predetermines certain decisions?
God Relenting Or Changing His Mind
Much of Scriptures when describing God naturally uses anthropomorphic language. The Bible says God is spirit rather than having a body like humans, but passages such as God having ears to hear help make a point. One must ask what purpose emotional anthropomorphic passages serve if the future is already determined? Numerous passages speak of God relenting, regretting, or changing His mind? Why would the inspired writers even use such descriptions if indeed they understood the future was already predetermined? Exodus 32 shares a story between God and Moses. Moses had left his people to go up on Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments from God. While he was gone, the Israelites begin worshipping false idols. God become very anger and intended to punish His people.
“I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’”
But Moses pleaded to God for mercy and God answered his prayer: “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (v.14) This is only one of numerous passages where Scriptures states God intended to take certain actions but did not after prayer or repentance. These passages strongly suggest the future is open and is dependent on our prayers as well as the choice people make. Neither God’s actions nor the future is predetermined.
All the passages that speak of man’s freedom and God’s action to relent from punishing make the most sense when we assume the future is not known. God changing His mind makes more sense if we don’t assume the future is predetermined.
God is said to relent often in Scripture because of prayer or one standing in the gap. Ezekiel 22:30-31 says: "I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD." In Number 14 God fully intended to strike down the Israelites with a plague because of their rebelliousness, but God forgive them at the request of Moses. (vs. 12, 20) Time and time again God relented or changed His mind based on one’s prayer or change in one’s actions (Genesis 18:23-32, Deut. 9:13-20, 2 Kings 20:1-6, Amos 7:1-6, Ps. 106:41-46, Jer. 26:1-3, Joel 2:12-14, Jonah 3:9)
I Chronicles 21:14-15 says God let up after being so grieved by the calamity seen by the angel of destruction. God was forced to change His mind about Eli’s family being ministers forever before God due to their rebelliousness. (I Sam 2: 22-33) The biblical authors did not have a problem describing God’s actions changing according to obedience or rebelliousness. The above passages do not contradict or require being explained away with passages such as Malachi 3:6-7: "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty”(i.e. Heb. 13:8, James 1:17). In verse six God is said not to change but in verse seven in fact He does change if His people will choose Him. (“Return to me, and I will return to you”) Taken in context, passages such as these mean God’s character does not change. He is sinless. God does not tell the truth one day and tell a lie the next day. If only humans were as dependable. Kaiser explains this passage and subject best:
Does this assertion mean that God is impassible – that he is without any emotions? Is he then basically inflexible, incapable of yielding on any point once he has set in motion a decision to act in a certain way? And if he is able to respond to any legitimate changes in his creatures, then what does it mean to claims that his is unchanging?…The problem of change in God can be answered best by noting that with respect to God’s essence, attributes, moral character and determination to punish sin and reward goodness, there can be no variation or inconsistency. With regard to these characteristics, there is absolute and unconditional dependability…Because God remains dependable, the descendants of Jacob has not been destroyed. Israel’s continued existence was due to god’s unchangeable love and mercy. Had not God promised that he would never violate his covenant with Abraham and David (Ps 89:34)?...The changes attributed to God have to do only with his mode of dealing with mortals, when they had pulled away from his purposes or ways. God, as a living person, has the qualities of personality, freedom, and holiness. Therefore, if he is to remain constant in his character and person, me must change his actions toward those who violate what he stands for. If we, as humans, can change in our response to situations in order to remain consistent with our true nature, then it should not be irreconcilably difficult to see God doing the same for even higher purposes, and with what is evidently a higher respect for his own holy nature and being. (More Hard Sayings of The Old Testament, 265-267)
Two passages in particular are commonly referred to as God not relenting or changing His mind. I Sam. 15:29 says: “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”(i.e. Numbers 23:19) These passages do not contradict or explain away the many other passages that clearly state God does change His mind based on man’s actions. In fact, in the same context (I Samuel 15:11, 35), God indeed expresses grief or a change in heart that He had made Saul king over Israel. Numbers 23 and I Samuel 15 refer to God not lying. God is completely honest and totally dependable, unlike humans. There are other passages that speak of God not changing His mind. Jeremiah 4:28 says: “Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back.” (i.e. Jer. 15:6, Ps. 110:4) These passages do not have to contract the numerous other passages that say God does relent or change His mind. Again, they only suggest God’s character does not change depending on circumstances. But, God is free to change his mind depending upon circumstances such as intercessory prayer or abuse of blessings given.
God’s Knowledge Of Future Not Exhaustive
Based on the above passages considered thus far, it would not be surprising if God actual expressed hope of something happening that did not come to fruition. Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20 says:
During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it… "I myself said, " 'How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.' I thought you would call me 'Father' and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, O house of Israel, have been unfaithful to me,” declares the LORD.
Those who suggest this is anthropomorphic language, what possible is the biblical writer attempting to convey about God? I suppose one could argue the writer is attempting to convey astonishment that people would reject God after all He has done for them. But, why does the writer not express this from his point of view than God’s? Is the writer really thinking God has predetermined the future and knows the future anyway? I believe it makes more sense in passages such as this to understand the future is open and not predetermined, and we can believe that God actually thought or hoped that something may happen that didn’t. God responds to his people according the choices they make in freedom.
Exodus 4:8-9 says: Then the LORD said, "If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground.” These passages and others do not pose a problem if one does not assume all of the future can be known. (i.e. Exodus 13:17-18, Ezek. 12:1-3, Isaiah 5:3-7, Jer. 7:31, 19:5, 32:35) Why must we think God already knows which miracle it will take for His people to believe? God does not force His decision upon others as if this is necessary so He can accomplish His will. God is everywhere in the universe at the same time, so His knowledge is hard to imagine. With God’s omniscience (complete knowledge) and His omnipotence (unlimited power, authority, influence), one can imagine how God does not loss control though the future is open. This is what makes Him God.
God’s Foreknowledge
It has been suggested by traditional theists that open theists do not deal at all with passages such as Ephesians 1:11 that speak of God’s predestined plan. Richard Rice writes on passages in the New Testament that speak to God’s foreknowledge:
The Greek New Testament speaks of God as “foreknowing” three times (Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Pet. 1:20, as having “foreknowledge” two times (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2), and as “predestining” or “deciding beforehand” four times (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5). In each instance, the word refers to some aspect of salvation history as the fulfillment of a preexistent plan. And the use of such expressions as “before the foundation of the world” (I Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:4), and “before the ages” (I Cor. 2:7) indicates that the plan existed as early as Creation. (God’s Foreknowledge & Man’s Free Will, 83)
God’s foreknowledge is not God peering into a fixed future to tell us ahead of time what is going to happen. References to God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament refer to God’s plan of salvation. A major stumbling block for many is the biblical argument that God elects certain individuals for eternal life and not others, thus necessarily damning those not elected to eternal damnation. I have written elsewhere the most probably biblical view of election. When it comes to the salvation of individuals, God’s foreknowledge specifies what His intentions are through Christ for those who desire His help. God’s foreknowledge does not include predetermining who will choose His salvation, thus suggesting the decisions of all individuals are fixed for the future.
Biblical Prophecy
Biblical prophecy is not simply God looking into the future to explain what is going to happen. God can see everything that is happening all at once, and He has the power to make things happen as He sees fit. This explanation of God preserves freedom. It seems this allows for even a bigger God than One who is just peering in the future and relaying what is going to happen. God knows each being intimately as well as all alternatives available (I Sam 16:7, Ps. 94:11, Ps 139:2-4, Mt 10:30). God’s knowledge is unfathomable. God’s power is amazing. He created the heavens and the earth; He caused a virgin to become pregnant.
Doctors, often based on physical symptoms, can accurately predict impending death. Obviously, God has even more intimate knowledge than human doctors. God also has the power to bring about certain things that don’t violate freedom such as Jesus’ resurrection. In addition, many prophecies are based on certain conditions, whether God’s people would obey or disobey. This may be the case though not said explicitly with many biblical prophecies. Ezekiel was called by God (Ezek. 2:3-5), but God warned Ezekiel of the dire consequences of neglecting his responsibilities as a prophet. This indicates Ezekiel could have disobeyed God’s calling. (Ezek. 3:16-21) God says about Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew (chose) you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."(1:5) Jeremiah still resisted and ultimately could have not followed God’s will for His life. (v.6)
I know the following will be blasphemous to some and possibly empowering to others. We all know the prophecies of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection. God always must have contingency plans based on one’s freedom to sin or not. Jesus’ temptations from Satan in Matthew 4 were real and not a facade. Wasn’t Jesus capable of succumbing to sin? Was the outcome predetermined ahead of time? Jesus’ pleaded to God in Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” We do not have to assume this was just play-acting by Jesus. We can assume God could have found another way, so He remains true to His word about prophecies in the Old Testament regarding a Messiah. God is not limited by the choices we make. God is never caught off guard; God is never powerless to bring about what He promises. God does not require knowledge of the future so He can act and fulfill His promises.
Difficult Passages That May Suggest God Knows The Future
There are many passages that at first reading seem to support more of the traditional viewpoint. For the sake of space, I may only quote some of the passage rather than the entire context. I ask the reader to refer to the passages cited in their Bible. Isaiah 46:10 seems to be the gold standard for traditionalists in arguing the future is known and preordained. “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” Is this passage really trying to say all that traditionalists suggest? God compares Himself in this chapter to other gods. Other gods are mere statutes, which cannot move. (v.7) God from the beginning has made know His purpose that He will fulfill in the end. Beginning in Genesis God advised of His purpose or promise to provide salvation through a Messiah. This Plan became necessary from the beginning of human history when man rebelled and came in need of a Savior. (v.13) This Plan was made know in the beginning of history and God saw it through to the end. What other god has or can do that?
Isaiah 41:22-23 is a similar passage cited by traditionalists as a key passage that open theists have no explanation for. God distinguishes Himself from other gods because He can tell us what is going to happen. (v.22) This passage and many others like it can be interpreted to mean God is able to carry out what He has promised He will. The context indicates Israel has been chosen beginning with Abraham (v.8) to bless all nations through a Messenger of Good News. (v. 27) This is a promise-plan that is referred to in every book of the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament.
Psalms 33:15 says “he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do.” This verse does not say God forms the thoughts and decisions of all humans. Surely, we can understand this to mean that God the Creator forms the heart but humans make their choices. God “considers everything they do.” God eyes are on those who put their hope in His unfailing love. (v.18) Psalms 33:15 thus does not contradict Proverbs 16:1 that says: “To human beings belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue.”
Proverbs 21:1 says: “in the Lord’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” This passage does not suggest God predetermines all human decisions including those in power such as kings. Why would the Lord weigh the heart if their heart was already predetermined? (v.2) God can use all peoples’ actions, even wickedness, to accomplish His plans. What some intend for evil, God can bring good from it. “There is no wisdom, no insight, no – plan that can succeed against the Lord.” (v. 30) In fact, “The Lord works out everything to its proper end – even the wicked for a day of disaster.” (Prov 16:4)
Job’s story is often sited as evidence that God causes both the good and bad. Job 2:10 says: “shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” These passages do not declare God the cause of all things, including evil. In fact, in this story Satan is the one who initiates the different tragedies that comes upon Job. Certainly, God permits evil by allowing Satan to test Job severely. All theists must be able to give an explanation as to why their God, if He is all-powerful and good, allows evil by not intervening or stopping evil in this world. At least God cannot be accused of hypocrisy, as He did not even prevent evil against his own Son. There must be a reason for God allowing evil that Christians can explain, so they as Job don’t sin “by charging God with wrongdoing.” (Job 1:22; i.e. 2:10) But, Job does not prove God is the cause of all evil.
Lamentations 3:37-38 says: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mount of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? Passages such as these do not declare God is the source of all evil. The writer had just remarked that God “does not willingly bring affliction or grief to any human being.” (v. 33) It is contradictory for traditionalists to argue that God predetermines evil but “not willingly?” This passage is very similar to Deuteronomy 32:39 and others like it. “See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, an no one can deliver out of my hand.” Passages such as these are frequently in the context of God’s warnings of punishment of evildoers.
When punishment is necessary God always does so with a heavy heart, as is the case with an earthly parent with their children. God wishes no human being would cause evil against another human being. In the Lamentations passage moral injustices are said to come from the hand of evildoers (v. 34-36). Yes, God ultimately does permit it. Earthly parents can be accused of the same by even giving birth to their children, knowing their creations may harm others at some point in their lifetime. Parents permit evil by allow their young children to have choices to sin rather than keeping them locked up. It is true no evil has free rein unless allowed by God. But, if we demand God punish immorality instantly or not even allow freedom, are we not judging Him as to how to deal with a world free to love or rebel against Him and other? Is this where Job strayed when God because annoyed with him? (Job 38) Do we humans actually know better how to respond each and ever time humans sin than the Creator Himself? God ultimately does permit evil, but He is quite capable of overseeing and carrying out justice in the long run.
Amos 3:6 says: “when disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it.” Again, this is not a declaration that God causes all disasters. The context is clearly God causing disasters as a punishment for sin. (v.2) This is not difficult to understand for human parents. Humans detest parents who do not discipline their children, for they will only wreck further havoc on their fellow beings. It is true that sometimes when punishment is necessary, the innocence are impacted. A consequence of freedom is that sometimes the innocence die as a result of evil behaviors by a few. Just wars, which often involve the innocent losing their life, are sometimes necessary to fight against evil.
Exodus 4 has a couple of difficult verses that warrant discussion. Verse 11 says: “Who gave human beings their mouth? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” Furthermore, verse 24 says: “At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him.” The issue in verse 24 seems to concern the importance of Moses obedience to circumcision as he prepares to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser points out in this passage, as Moses was a passive participant, that he may have been too ill to act on his own so his wife Zipporah took action to be obedient to God’s request that all males be circumcised. (v. 25) The point of the story is that lack of obedience was serious enough for the writer to say the Lord “was about to kill him.”
Both of these passages in Exodus are similar to passages such as Job 2:10 that says: “shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” One should not conclude Scriptures defends God is the originator of evil and all suffering or that all of suffering is some elaborate scheme by God just so He can do good works. Certainly though since God is sovereign, He permits death, tragedies, environmental disasters by ultimately not intervening; this does not suggest God is the initial cause of all such events. God doesn’t cause humans to murder one another; God doesn’t select specific children to be born with genetic defects that make cause deafness or other physical concerns. When the text says God “was about to kill him” Kaiser explains the Hebrew language doesn’t always specify secondary factors but only that ultimately God is responsible by allowing certain things to happen that He could intervene because of His power. God ultimately may have allowed some kind of sickness to overcome Moses that would ultimately kill him.
The syntax of Old Testament Hebrew tends to be unconcerned with secondary causes; thus, what God permitted is often said in the Old Testament to be done directly by him. Thus if, as we believe, God permitted Moses to be afflicted with a severe sickness, or some other danger, the proper way to express that in Hebrew language patterns would be to say that God wanted to kill him. It was not simply that Moses was sick and near death; it was a case of the sovereignty of God, who controls all events and happenings on planet earth. Thus, the secondary causes were not important. The ultimate cause took precedence as a means of explanation (More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, 72)
Joseph, Pharaoh, Peter, and Judas
Joseph, Pharaoh, Peter, and Judas are a few biblical examples of individual lives where it is argued that God preordains certain behaviors before they happen or they at the very least prove God knows the future. These examples are not easily explainable, but they do not necessarily contradict numerous other passages that imply all future events aren’t preordained acts of God in which individuals had no choice. Traditional theists with the below individual examples suggest God’s foreordains human choice yet somehow humans are held responsible for such actions. Traditionalists might say such contradictory events are unexplainable to the finite human mind. I believe there are reasonable interpretations faithful to the text that suggest the writer was not thinking human choices were predetermined.
In the Genesis’ story of Joseph and his brothers, this is more a story about God leveraging evil to bring about good than God causing evil or overriding the freedom of individuals. Freewill and human emotions not controlled by God definitely seem to be in action here. Joseph brothers were jealous and plotted to kill him. (Genesis 37:18) God didn’t force these thoughts into their mind. At least that is not how the writer develops the story. Sibling jealously had been stirring for years. Eventually, the brothers sold Joseph as a slave and the rest is history. Joseph tells his brothers in Genesis 45:7: “But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” It is very possible Joseph means though the brothers’ first intentions were to kill Joseph, God intervened to save His life by having him sold. God had a Plan since sin to use the nation of Israel, so that all nations good benefit through the Messiah. Joseph comforted his brothers that God brought good from the choices they made; God used their actions to accomplish a greater purpose. Surely, the writer is conveying that God can respond to evil initiated by humans to serve His purposes. Joseph later says: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good…” (50:20) Joseph said to the brothers “do not be angry for selling me here” (45:5), but this does not exonerate the brothers of their evil intentions or actions in the beginning or prove God preordained these events before they happened. The brothers in fear after their father’s death begged Joseph for forgiveness. (50:15-18) Though an argument of silence, Joseph didn’t convey forgiveness wasn’t necessary as if he believed God forced the brothers against their will. God simply intervened to prevent Joseph’s death. The future is not some preordained event from the beginning of time where human are merely puppets being pull on a string by God every which way He decides. God works hand-in-hand with humans and the choices they make to accomplish His plan, which is always for the goodwill of all.
The story of Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart in the book of Exodus has some similarities to Joseph’s story. Humans on their own accord initiate evil and God reserves the prerogative to then intervene to further accomplish His plan. God’s plan since Genesis was to deliver the Messiah through the Israelite nation as a blessing to all nations. Exodus 4:21 says: “The LORD said to Moses, When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” But, Exodus 8:32 says: “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.” In this story there are numerous examples of God doing the hardening and Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Why does the writer even include these acts of self-will if he believes Pharaoh has no voice in these matters? The point was that God would accomplish His plan to free the Egyptians whether or not Pharaoh cooperated with God’s plan or not. Moses even communicated this plan to Pharaoh so he might have a choice. (6:28) Traditional theists may point out that even before Moses meets with Pharaoh, God says He will harden Pharaoh’s heart. (7:3-5) God didn’t have to peer into the future to be faithful to His word. Many of God’s actions and prophecies are understood to be conditional upon whether humans obey or not, though this condition is not always mentioned in the text. This was the case in Jonah’s story with the Ninevites. God would not have been a liar if Pharaoh had cooperated from the very beginning and it became unnecessary for God to harden Pharaoh’s heart. There is no evidence that God violated Pharaoh’s freedom, though there is a limit to God’s mercy.
The story of Pharaoh is not an either or answer. We don’t have to conclude God made Pharaoh sin because of some predetermined plan from the beginning of time. Though I think the explanation that this prophecy was a conditional one is possible, another reasonable explanation is that in the midst of Pharaoh’s rebellion, God hardened his heart. Maybe Pharaoh could not have acted differently during these times, but perhaps God only held him accountable for initial acts of hardening. But, there is a self-hardening in evil. It is not as if God hardens one’s heart despite their wish to be obedient to God. This is totally opposite of God’s nature and the rest of Scriptures. God’s hardening is not arbitrary and mechanical. God does not act in a way in which one cannot resist without the opportunity to change. God used Pharaoh for His purposes to accomplish His will, which is always centered on His love for people. God used choices Pharaoh made to accomplish a greater good not intended by Pharaoh’s evil intentions.
In the New Testament, it is predicted Peter would deny Christ not once but three times before it actually happened. Was Jesus simply peering into the future and advising what would happen? Is it even possible Peter could have resisted? Jesus’ prediction could have been conditional, though not explicitly stated, serving as a warning to Peter to prepare for upcoming faith challenges. If Jesus were guaranteeing a future event and Peter was destined to fail, why would Jesus pray Peter’s faith would not fail? (Luke 22:32) A teacher can often predict which students will fail. A teacher may even tell a student they will fail their class to challenge them. How though can Jesus say Peter would deny Him exactly three times if He was not peering into an already fixed future? It is possible God planted a thought in the mind of the people who challenged Peter. This did not impose upon others’ freedoms; it only proved that Jesus was who He said He was and unlike other gods can always keep His promises. It is also possible that the gospel writers only shared this story because Peter indeed failed, thus the writers understand Jesus’ prediction was conditional The readers stood to benefit from hearing about Peter’s failure, as they too would face similar times in the end times predicted by Jesus. (Lk 21) It might not have been significant to share Peter’s story if he had heeded Jesus’ warnings to prepare for challenges to his allegiance. The gospels are not an account of every single word spoken by Jesus in His life.
Judas’ prediction is more difficult to explain because Jesus’ betrayal by a close friend is predicted even in the Old Testament. “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9) In John 6 Jesus predicts Judas’ betrayal earlier on. Like Peter, Jesus’ warning could have been conditional. Early on perhaps Judas became predictable. Who has any doubt had they not be stopped, Hitler or Saddam Hussein would continue to kill if given the opportunity to do so. In order to be faithful to the text, we are not required to believe God forced Judas to do evil. This would contradict what else has been written about God in Scriptures. Richard Rice in God’s Foreknowledge And Man’s Free Will argues: “Judas’ behavior indeed fulfilled the prophecy in question, but it may not have been the only possible way of fulfilling it. For example, Psalm 41:9 seems to apply to Peter’s denial just as effectively as Judas’ betrayal…we can affirm both the validity of prophetic predictions and the integrity of human freedom.” (97) Judas was not predestined before he was born to betray Jesus.
Conclusion
Numerous passages speak of the future being open and dependent on the choices make by individual human beings. There are reasonable explanations for passages, which at first reading seem to suggest otherwise. Also, there are other biblical reasons that suggest the future is open and God’s actions are dependent upon human actions. Contrary to the assumptions of many, there are no clear biblical passages that suggest God has one script or will for each person’s life when it comes to God’s guidance for their life. If the future is predetermined, it would make sense such a script exist. Regarding a major decision as marriage, the Bible only suggests a believer not marry an unbeliever for obvious, spiritual reasons. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) The Bible never suggests there is only one man a woman must discover to marry to be in God’s will. Paul advises a widow “But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” (I Corinthians 7:39b) In fact, in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul suggests individuals must make a wise decision about whether to marry or not based on their circumstances at that time. There appear to be many, not just one godly path, individuals can follow suggesting the future is open.
There are times in the Bible that God did have a specific task for a person but God made this crystal clear through visions or an audible voice. Paul, on the road to Damascus, was advised by audible voice God’s desire for him. (Acts 9:4) God needed Paul to play a significant role in presenting the Gospel to the Gentiles. God used Paul to take His promise of salvation to all nations. The Jewish nation was only a vessel to carry out this magnificent Plan. But, there were thousands of other decisions in a believer’s life in biblical times where there was no hint Christ’s followers had to worry about missing God’s will. The Bible is explicit about God’s moral will but does not imply there is a specific individual will in the day-to-day lives of believers.
I do not believe Scriptures support that God elected certain individuals for salvation in the very beginning, thus damning others to hell. This may be one main reason traditional theists are convinced God knows the future, as many believe Scriptures teach God knows and chooses ahead of time certain individuals for salvation. Please see Rice’s comments above in the section on God’s foreknowledge regarding God’s preexistent salvation plan. Election in the Old Testament concerned a nation. There is no evidence this election became individualistic in the New Testament. Israel’s election was not for individual salvation, as evident many do not trust God, but for the purpose of blessing all nations with the Messiah. Individuals were not elected or preordain, but Christ was elected and chosen ahead of time so many might choose to trust God. God desires all people to be saved. (I Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) God doesn’t thwart His own will by electing only certain individuals to spend eternity with Him after death, while damning others to eternity without Him. Traditionalists suggest there is God’s decretive will (intentions) versus preceptive will (values). These seem to be categories developed to explain a meaning of election that is not biblical. God does not put a quota on His grace. For those interested I have written an entire chapter in my book God May Not Be Your Problem on why I believe God does not elect some individuals for salvation thus damming other to hell.
I believe open theists have a far better explanation for evil than traditional theists, while remaining faithful to Scripture. Many traditional theists imply that God required evil from the very beginning of time to accomplish His good purposes and declare His glory. It is reasonable for skeptics to ask why God could not accomplish His plan and show His goodness by not requiring evil? All theists must be able to defend God’s character for no matter what you believe about God’s role in the beginning of evil, clearly God does not always intervene or stop evil. I have discussed elsewhere what could possibly be God’s reason for not constantly preventing or interfering with evil and suffering that goes along with that. Traditionalists have argue that it is more hopeful when we can say God is behind evil from the beginning, as this then means evil is purposeful. I believe there is more hope when we can say God does not initiate evil, but God promises to come along our side and bring something good from evil if we will allow. It is not as if God opted out of evil as seen by His Son’s excruciating crucifixion. Jesus did resurrect from the dead, but we all have the same blessing eventually if desired. Suffering may serve a purpose here on earth, but there will be no suffering after death. Certainly one can understand how less of a crisis of faith is caused if they believe God allows evil, perhaps due mostly to freedom, and He will see us through it and bring something good from it. But, a harder pill to swallow is to think God plans and causes evil for His purposes.
I believe the open view is superior from a relational point of view with our Creator. It is true that if God already has preordained and determined the future, that there is greater certainty what He promises in the future will come to pass. I must admit I have no idea what God would have done if Jesus had succumbed to Satan’s temptation. But, it can be significant relationally to realize Jesus’ obedience was not a foregone conclusion. Jesus temptations were real, not just good drama. Our Savior asks nothing of us He has not required of Himself. There is evidence that even Jesus thought God prophecies could remain infallible by somehow Jesus not dying on the cross. Why else would Jesus ask if “this cup could pass from me” (cross) if somehow He didn’t think God could figure it out? Or was this just more dramatics? Jesus could have been asking for a less painful death. For most, is it easier to accept, understand, and worship a God who doesn’t control everything and gives freedom as opposed to a God who is controlling and accepts no resistance?
A fixed future is not required from a biblical perspective. God does not loss control because the future is not fixed. Freedom was one of God initial creative acts. We do not have to defend a fixed future’s logical conclusion that freedom is a facade. Freedom resulted in sin, but God overcame sin through the Incarnation. God can’t promise us a life without problems. He can’t promise evil will not impact us. He does promise us justice one day for those who commit crimes against others. He does promise us the hope of a life to come without evil. He does promise to walk alongside us to give peace in the midst of evil that passes all human understanding. God does promise to use us to bring some good from evil if we will depend on Him.
Questions For Discussion:
1. If both traditional and open viewpoints have strengths and weaknesses exegetically, shouldn’t we then choose the viewpoint that attracts more to God?
2. Can humans be genuinely free and morally responsible if God knows and has predetermined the future?
3. Is it less of a crisis of faith for the majority if we suggest God allows evil because of freedom and will use it to bring about good rather than God planned or cause evil for His purposes?
4. What purpose do anthropomorphisms serve, such as God regretting His actions, changing His mind, or being surprised, if to not reveal certain characteristics about God and that the future is open and not determined?
5. Aren’t we saying God regrets His own decisions, if we argue God grieves over His predetermined plans?
6. Is not evil far more explainable in terms of wrong choices made by humans than God’s own doing?
7. Do we really want to argue the logical conclusion of a predetermined future that God required sin in the beginning to declare His glory?
8. Is it easier for the majority to worship a God who is controlling and accepts no resistance or a God who doesn’t control everything and gives freedom?
9. If we suggest it is some kind of unexplainable mystery to argue that God foreordains evil but then somehow this does not make Him originator or author of evil, doesn’t this suggest the words God uses to communicate to us His ways lack any correspond or reality to meaning?
10. Is it necessary to argue the future must be known to God because it is difficult to understand how God can guarantee anything in the future if contingent on humans being able to change their mind at the last moment?
My Prayer
God, I know You did not foreordain or desired evil and suffering in the beginning. You allowed the freedom to love or rebel against You; we brought this mess on ourselves. I am grateful how You chose to respond. I now know from being a father that a child must be free to choose or all hell breaks loose anything. I know there is no greater feeling then when Janet or the children choose to love me out of genuine than forced respect.
I understand that suffering is necessary due to such freedom. I am also beginning to understand that suffering is necessary for character reasons. I must admit I would respond to suffering resulting from evil differently than you do. When suffering happens I will do almost anything to stop the pain. I don’t care how it might make me a better person. I often don’t care that my own suffering, as Christ’s suffering, may be the only way to reach others with Your love. I understand I do not have to pray for suffering. But, I know also in a free world, life is not always fair or without suffering.
Dear God, should I have to suffer, please help me to live out what You have taught through your Word. Help me to not blame You. I know I can pray for a miracle, but help me to know that lack of miracles don’t suggest You don’t care or that You aren’t present every moment of my time in pain. Help me to allow my suffering to teach me important life lessons. Help me to allow my suffering to draw others closer to You.
Bibliography
Bilezikian, Dr. Gilbert. “A Challenge For Proponents Of Female Subordination To Prove
Their Case From The Bible” at .
Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.
_____. Teach Us To Pray. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Colson, Chuck & Nancy Pearcey. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton: Tyndale, 1999
Colson, Chuck. Answers To Your Kids’ Questions. Wheaton: Tyndale, 2000.
Drake, Herb. “The ‘Submission’ of Wives” at magazine/ephesians5.html)
Frame, John M. No Other God: A Response To Open Theism. Phillipsburg: P & R, 2001.
Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case For Conditional
Immortality. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994.
Greene Jr., William. “The Ethics Of The Old Testament.” In Evangelical Essays In Old
Testament Interpretation, ed. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.
Gregg, Steve. “Divorce And Remarriage” at
Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill. Good News For Women: A Biblical Picture Of Gender Equality. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.
_____. “Leading Him Up The Garden Path: Further Thoughts On 1 Timothy 2:11-15.”
Priscilla Papers, Spring, 2002.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The Covering: God’s Plan To Protect You From Evil. Nashville: W
Publishing, 2002.
Hiebert, D.E. Mark: A Portrait Of The Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Howell, John C. Equality And Submission In Marriage. Baptist Sunday School Board,
1979
Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Toward An Exegetical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
_____. The Messiah In The Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
_____. Preaching And Teaching From The Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
_____. Toward An Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978
_____. Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1988.
_____. More Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992.
_____. Expositors Bible Commentary (Volume 2). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Keener, Craig S. “Women In Ministry.” In Two Views On Women In Ministry, eds.
James R. Beck & Craig L. Blomberg. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Marshall, I.H. Kept By The Power Of God. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1969.
_____. Luke: Historian And Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
Murray, John. The Epistle To The Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Osborne, Grant. “Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts.” In Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark
Pinnoch. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975.
Payne, Philip. Man And Woman, One in Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Pinnock, Clark & Robert C. Brow. Unbounded Love: A Good News Theology For The
21st Century. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1994.
Pinnock, Clark. “The Conditional View.” In Four Views On Hell, ed. William Crockett.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Piper, John. Desiring God. Sisters: Multnomah, 1986.
Rice, Richard. God’s Foreknowledge And Man’s Free Will. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1980.
Sanders, John. “Historical Considerations.” In The Openness Of God: A Biblical
Challenge To The Traditional Understanding Of God by Clark H. Pinnock, Richard
Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger. DownersGrove: Intervarsity,
1994.
Whitacre, Rodney in IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Grant Osborne, (ed.) 1999
Yancey, Philip. Disappointment With God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
______. A Guided Tour Of The Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.