Seldom does he fail; if any catastrophic event happens, Pat Robertson is there to inform the world exactly God’s reason(s) for the calamity. Haiti’s bereavements have been quickly met with Robertson’s self-pronouncements of the divine motives behind the disaster: God’s judgment (of course!) for the people allegedly having made a “pact with the devil.”
The guys at The White Horse Inn have done a good job at answering Robertson’s ridiculous remarks and moving readers toward a biblical assessment of the horrible situation that has befallen this impoverished people.
As Christians, we are commanded by the our Lord to intercede on behalf of those in Haiti, and extend relief, according to our means, to those suffering, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ who are there. We should also be prompted to meditate and study the problem of the suffering and evil that is present in our Father’s world, being ready always with a biblical answer to anyone that might inquire of us how we understand and have hope in the face of this such darkness. In this connection, let’s us also not be shy in asking others to do the same; this is a great opportunity to engage nonbelievers with the reality of suffering and evil, asking them for an answer to the problem from their own perspective and presuppositions.
O Lord, Sovereign King, eternal, infinite and unchangeable in power and goodness and wisdom, be ever-present in that power, working out your purposes of glory and good in Haiti; Lord Jesus, you, who knows grief and suffering better than we, comfort and shepherd the hearts of those who are walking through the valley of death; and Holy Spirit, applying the power of the death and resurrection Christ, renew and recreate this void and uninhabitable land and its people, demonstrating that in Christ the old has passed away, death is destroyed in his death, and all things have become new through your infallible, victorious, irresistible and always efficacious regeneration. To the praise and glory of the triune God. Amen.
Showing posts with label Theodicy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theodicy. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Lex Talion and Theodicy in Job 34
Few people are ever very impressed with the role of Elihu in the book of Job. Some have argued that his diatribe is a redactor’s gloss, added by a later scribe who sought to do what Job’s other three friends could not do: justify God’s dealings with poor Job. Summing up the thoughts of R. H. Pfieiffer and M. H. Pope, Derek Kidner puts it thus, “[Pfieiffer and Pope] regards the Elihu speeches as the well-meaning intervention of a reader who was shocked at Job’s audacity and disappointed by the failure of his friends to silence him” (An Introduction To Wisdom Literature, 1985. 82).
Others have thought that Elihu’s place in the story is simply a ‘too little, too late’ type situation; Elihu actually adds nothing to the long-waxed prose of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Nevertheless, whatever Elihu’s place is in the plot, we can find little to complain about the gist of his theology.
Having said that, lets look at Job 34 in particular. Here, I believe, is a fine example of applying the lex talionic principle of God’s judgments to the problem of theodicy (i.e., justifying God’s actions).
Elihu begins with an invitation for the “wise men” to give his argument an ear (v. 2, 10). Elihu then invokes the same sensory figure—“ear tests words” just as the “palate tastes food”—that Job had earlier in his pleas (cf. 12:11; Ps 119:103, etc).
Elihu, in keeping with Near Eastern etiquette, refrained from offering his verdict too soon, because of his relative youthfulness (32:4. Note: That Elihu’s remarks would be dismissed due to his youthful impropriety is not uncommon, granting the cultural context of ‘many years = wisdom.’ However, this mustn’t be made too absolute of a criterion. The elevated piety of the psalmist reflects a parallel attitude, Ps 119:97—104. Also, if we were to take this too absolutely, what are we to make of Jesus’ conflicts with the "elders of Israel," and that as a thirty-something?!?). After all, “Is it not the old who are wise...?” (32:9; cf. 12:12). Though Elihu is “young in years” and his company is “aged” (32:6), he can finally stand it no longer. With hints of prophetic unction (v. 8), he is now prepared to vent the frothing, fermenting speech that threatens to burst him asunder (vv. 17—20). The utter incompetence of his elder fellows in substantiating their charges against Job, thus failing to rebut his complaints, was a driving force for Elihu (v. 3, 11—16). But the main concern for Elihu, that which caused him to “burn with anger at Job” was “because [Job] justified himself rather than God” (v. 2). Theodicy is therefore Elihu’s top priority.
That theodicy is primary is further supported by Elihu’s choice of Job’s complaints in chapter 34. In v. 5, Elihu quotes Job’s earlier remark: “I am in the right, and God has taken away my right” (cf. 27:2—6). Similarly, in v. 9, Elihu cites Job again, this time recalling his statement, “It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God” (cf. 21:15). Elihu’s thesis, the centre of his argument, is the lex talionic principle of God’s justice incased by a brief introversion of couplets, following the A-X-A’ pattern. This is vv. 10—12.
"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
(A. 1) far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
(A. 2) and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
(X. 1) For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
(X. 2) and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
(A’. 1) Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
(A’. 2) and the Almighty will not pervert justice. "
What was at stake was God being charged with injustice and wickedness (!). These charges have become very popular in the propaganda of the New Atheists today (antitheists, better; e.g., Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et cetera). In the pair of A lines, Elihu implicitly draws and denies the necessary conclusion of Job’s reasoning; in the A’ set, he states his denial with emphatic negatives. Between the couplets is the grounds for Elihu’s denial, the lex talionis principle. Regardless of one’s appraisal of Elihu’s role in the story, I believe that his comments here can be pedagogical for us.
Granted, with respect to Job’s story, we modern readers have the back of the book answer, so to speak; we were made privy to the heavenly levels disclosed in the first two chapters, and we know the end, we have “seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11). This vantage allows us to evaluate not only Job’s circumstances better than his four friends, but also lets us treat them a bit unfairly. In much of the popular moralistic type of preaching today, a sermon from this book will usually have for its take-home point something to the effect that “In Suffering, listen, don’t speak...Don’t be like Job’s non-comforters.”
Of course, there are times when people have questions and even accusations against God that are borne in genuine suffering. In these cases, they are not in need of philosophical dialectics, but empathy. However, this is stressed to the point that I fear that it has emasculated further the already weak apologetical posture and abilities of the Church at large. Because there are often times when the ‘problem of evil’ is thrust upon believers as a formidable objection to the omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God portrayed in Scripture, we cannot suspend judgment indiscriminately in every case.
In other words, when the philosophical objection is made by someone, parroting either Richard Dawkins or his junior college philosophy professor, we must be ready always to give a defense to any one who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pet 3:15). And I believe that the lex talionic principle can often be helpful in that defense.
When the texts appropriate it, we’ll look further in this direction and its various applications. For a more thorough examination and one answer to the ‘problem of evil’ from a Christian perspective, you might want to check this out.
Blessings in the thrice holy God!
Others have thought that Elihu’s place in the story is simply a ‘too little, too late’ type situation; Elihu actually adds nothing to the long-waxed prose of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Nevertheless, whatever Elihu’s place is in the plot, we can find little to complain about the gist of his theology.
Having said that, lets look at Job 34 in particular. Here, I believe, is a fine example of applying the lex talionic principle of God’s judgments to the problem of theodicy (i.e., justifying God’s actions).
Elihu begins with an invitation for the “wise men” to give his argument an ear (v. 2, 10). Elihu then invokes the same sensory figure—“ear tests words” just as the “palate tastes food”—that Job had earlier in his pleas (cf. 12:11; Ps 119:103, etc).
Elihu, in keeping with Near Eastern etiquette, refrained from offering his verdict too soon, because of his relative youthfulness (32:4. Note: That Elihu’s remarks would be dismissed due to his youthful impropriety is not uncommon, granting the cultural context of ‘many years = wisdom.’ However, this mustn’t be made too absolute of a criterion. The elevated piety of the psalmist reflects a parallel attitude, Ps 119:97—104. Also, if we were to take this too absolutely, what are we to make of Jesus’ conflicts with the "elders of Israel," and that as a thirty-something?!?). After all, “Is it not the old who are wise...?” (32:9; cf. 12:12). Though Elihu is “young in years” and his company is “aged” (32:6), he can finally stand it no longer. With hints of prophetic unction (v. 8), he is now prepared to vent the frothing, fermenting speech that threatens to burst him asunder (vv. 17—20). The utter incompetence of his elder fellows in substantiating their charges against Job, thus failing to rebut his complaints, was a driving force for Elihu (v. 3, 11—16). But the main concern for Elihu, that which caused him to “burn with anger at Job” was “because [Job] justified himself rather than God” (v. 2). Theodicy is therefore Elihu’s top priority.
That theodicy is primary is further supported by Elihu’s choice of Job’s complaints in chapter 34. In v. 5, Elihu quotes Job’s earlier remark: “I am in the right, and God has taken away my right” (cf. 27:2—6). Similarly, in v. 9, Elihu cites Job again, this time recalling his statement, “It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God” (cf. 21:15). Elihu’s thesis, the centre of his argument, is the lex talionic principle of God’s justice incased by a brief introversion of couplets, following the A-X-A’ pattern. This is vv. 10—12.
"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
(A. 1) far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
(A. 2) and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
(X. 1) For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
(X. 2) and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
(A’. 1) Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
(A’. 2) and the Almighty will not pervert justice. "
What was at stake was God being charged with injustice and wickedness (!). These charges have become very popular in the propaganda of the New Atheists today (antitheists, better; e.g., Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et cetera). In the pair of A lines, Elihu implicitly draws and denies the necessary conclusion of Job’s reasoning; in the A’ set, he states his denial with emphatic negatives. Between the couplets is the grounds for Elihu’s denial, the lex talionis principle. Regardless of one’s appraisal of Elihu’s role in the story, I believe that his comments here can be pedagogical for us.
Granted, with respect to Job’s story, we modern readers have the back of the book answer, so to speak; we were made privy to the heavenly levels disclosed in the first two chapters, and we know the end, we have “seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (Jas 5:11). This vantage allows us to evaluate not only Job’s circumstances better than his four friends, but also lets us treat them a bit unfairly. In much of the popular moralistic type of preaching today, a sermon from this book will usually have for its take-home point something to the effect that “In Suffering, listen, don’t speak...Don’t be like Job’s non-comforters.”
Of course, there are times when people have questions and even accusations against God that are borne in genuine suffering. In these cases, they are not in need of philosophical dialectics, but empathy. However, this is stressed to the point that I fear that it has emasculated further the already weak apologetical posture and abilities of the Church at large. Because there are often times when the ‘problem of evil’ is thrust upon believers as a formidable objection to the omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God portrayed in Scripture, we cannot suspend judgment indiscriminately in every case.
In other words, when the philosophical objection is made by someone, parroting either Richard Dawkins or his junior college philosophy professor, we must be ready always to give a defense to any one who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pet 3:15). And I believe that the lex talionic principle can often be helpful in that defense.
When the texts appropriate it, we’ll look further in this direction and its various applications. For a more thorough examination and one answer to the ‘problem of evil’ from a Christian perspective, you might want to check this out.
Blessings in the thrice holy God!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The Lex Talion
There is in Scripture a principle of justice know by the old Latin term lex talionis. Roughly, this means a law or principle of retribution; that the punishment is commensurate to the crime committed. More specifically, it is associated with the five occurrences of the variously stated “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” et cetera. Far from the modern critic’s appraisal that this law is indicative of our primitive, barbarous past, the lex talion insured that the penalty did not exceed that which the injurious act warranted.
This principle, I argue, is that which underlies all of God’s judgment on the children of men. It is not some mere, impersonal law knitted into the fabric of nature or the like, such as assumed in Eastern Mystic philosophies. Contrarily, the lex talion is part and parcel of the living God’s attribute of justice—perfect justice. And as one aspect of his holy nature, the lex talion is a reflection of his perfection.
We should not fail to look beyond the specificity of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” to the rounded nature of the law in principled instances. For example, Paul’s warning, which has been engrafted into common English parlance, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal 6:7), is based upon this same principle of God’s justice and judgment. Likewise, from beginning to end, there is the cautioning all throughout Scripture that God has, does and will judge and recompense every one according to their deeds or works.
This means, on the one hand, that God sees to it that the punishment will correspond qualitatively to the crime; that is, the degree of punishment will meet the offence. But it also means, on the other hand, that the kind of punishment one (individually or collectively) receives corresponds in similitude and likeness to the offence. As Paul said, “what” one sows is precisely also “that” which he reaps. Perhaps a couple of examples from Scripture would be helpful to elucidate this latter sense of the principle, the similitude or likeness of the punishment to the crime.
Think of the exodus story, Pharaoh’s war against Yahweh and his Seed, for instance. It opens with allusive statements of Israel, according to Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:1f), as a corporate Adam, fulfilling Gen 1:28. “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). In response, Pharaoh and Egypt were terrified of Israel’s growing strength, and so Pharaoh tried first to “afflict them with heavy burdens.’ This foil, however, failed his purposes; Israel grew all the stronger under his oppressive hand (vv. 9—12). This is all too true to Israel’s surrogate name, Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen 41:52). Just another felix culpa, a fortunate fall in Israel’s history.
Having seen that plan-A had not met the growing challenge, Pharaoh attempted to thwart the purposes of Yahweh with a plan-B—kill the firstborn of Israel (1:15ff). From here follows the terrors and horrors that Yahweh brought upon Pharaoh and Egypt with the first nine plagues. (Many understand each of the plagues to be a direct battle between the God of Israel and one of the many gods of the Egyptian pantheon, thus making each plague-judgment lex talionic in character: “You desire to worship and serve idols, then you’ll have more of them [through means of their imaged representatives, e.g., frogs] than you can handle.”). Each of these nine judgments, and the subsequent hardening of Pharaoh, is foreshadowing and anticipating one climactic judgment; one that would finally break Pharaoh’s relentless grip.
And what is that 10th and final judgment? Exactly what Pharaoh had decreed, only in recompense. Pharaoh’s evil plot was turned on his own head; he was clothed with his own devises as with a garment, to put it in psalteric terms. And so, the Destroyer came a snuffed the life of the firstborn of Egypt, just as Pharaoh had struggled to destroy the firstborn of Israel.
The section ends similar to how it began. The Egyptians are again in fear and dread of the people of Israel (12:33; cf. 1:12). Also again, the Egyptians burden the Israelites under heavy loads. This time, however, it was silver and gold jewelry and clothing, “Thus they spoiled the Egyptians” (12:35—36). God gave to Pharaoh just what he wanted, a dead son; the punishment was commensurate to the crime— in both quality and likeness.
Another case in point, in connection with the exodus, is that which lead to it. The patriarchs’ dealing treacherously with Joseph; and rather than kill him outright, they sell him into slavery in Egypt, “the land of his affliction.” We know how the rest goes.
Finally, we’ll look at a more experimental example of the lex talionis. There are numerous instances in Scripture were we find what one has called sensory organ malfunction language. This is usually, if not always, associated with idolatry. Perhaps this is nowhere more clearly stated than in Ps 115:4—8 (ESV), which reads,
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throats.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust them.
Anyone interested in witnessing this theme fleshed out would do well to consult Dr. Gregory Beale’s recent work We Become What We Worship. Beale does a biblical theology of idolatry in Scripture, especially the lex talionic nature of becoming like the idol so cherished by the worshipper; they, like the idol, become deaf, mute, lifeless and “worthless.”
We’ll stop here for today, but I wanted to share this much now so as to provide a paradigm for future posts that will rest upon and assume the general observations above. There are literally hundreds of demonstrations of this principle in Scripture (believe me, I’ve been accumulating a list for about two years now). Thus, if 1) the lex talion is a reflection of God moral character and his justice, and 2) the principle underlies so many of God’s dealings with men and nations in Scripture, then we’d do well to understand this theme as much as possible, and make applications in our interpretation and experience.
Blessings to you on this glorious Lord’s Day!
This principle, I argue, is that which underlies all of God’s judgment on the children of men. It is not some mere, impersonal law knitted into the fabric of nature or the like, such as assumed in Eastern Mystic philosophies. Contrarily, the lex talion is part and parcel of the living God’s attribute of justice—perfect justice. And as one aspect of his holy nature, the lex talion is a reflection of his perfection.
We should not fail to look beyond the specificity of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” to the rounded nature of the law in principled instances. For example, Paul’s warning, which has been engrafted into common English parlance, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal 6:7), is based upon this same principle of God’s justice and judgment. Likewise, from beginning to end, there is the cautioning all throughout Scripture that God has, does and will judge and recompense every one according to their deeds or works.
This means, on the one hand, that God sees to it that the punishment will correspond qualitatively to the crime; that is, the degree of punishment will meet the offence. But it also means, on the other hand, that the kind of punishment one (individually or collectively) receives corresponds in similitude and likeness to the offence. As Paul said, “what” one sows is precisely also “that” which he reaps. Perhaps a couple of examples from Scripture would be helpful to elucidate this latter sense of the principle, the similitude or likeness of the punishment to the crime.
Think of the exodus story, Pharaoh’s war against Yahweh and his Seed, for instance. It opens with allusive statements of Israel, according to Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:1f), as a corporate Adam, fulfilling Gen 1:28. “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). In response, Pharaoh and Egypt were terrified of Israel’s growing strength, and so Pharaoh tried first to “afflict them with heavy burdens.’ This foil, however, failed his purposes; Israel grew all the stronger under his oppressive hand (vv. 9—12). This is all too true to Israel’s surrogate name, Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen 41:52). Just another felix culpa, a fortunate fall in Israel’s history.
Having seen that plan-A had not met the growing challenge, Pharaoh attempted to thwart the purposes of Yahweh with a plan-B—kill the firstborn of Israel (1:15ff). From here follows the terrors and horrors that Yahweh brought upon Pharaoh and Egypt with the first nine plagues. (Many understand each of the plagues to be a direct battle between the God of Israel and one of the many gods of the Egyptian pantheon, thus making each plague-judgment lex talionic in character: “You desire to worship and serve idols, then you’ll have more of them [through means of their imaged representatives, e.g., frogs] than you can handle.”). Each of these nine judgments, and the subsequent hardening of Pharaoh, is foreshadowing and anticipating one climactic judgment; one that would finally break Pharaoh’s relentless grip.
And what is that 10th and final judgment? Exactly what Pharaoh had decreed, only in recompense. Pharaoh’s evil plot was turned on his own head; he was clothed with his own devises as with a garment, to put it in psalteric terms. And so, the Destroyer came a snuffed the life of the firstborn of Egypt, just as Pharaoh had struggled to destroy the firstborn of Israel.
The section ends similar to how it began. The Egyptians are again in fear and dread of the people of Israel (12:33; cf. 1:12). Also again, the Egyptians burden the Israelites under heavy loads. This time, however, it was silver and gold jewelry and clothing, “Thus they spoiled the Egyptians” (12:35—36). God gave to Pharaoh just what he wanted, a dead son; the punishment was commensurate to the crime— in both quality and likeness.
Another case in point, in connection with the exodus, is that which lead to it. The patriarchs’ dealing treacherously with Joseph; and rather than kill him outright, they sell him into slavery in Egypt, “the land of his affliction.” We know how the rest goes.
Finally, we’ll look at a more experimental example of the lex talionis. There are numerous instances in Scripture were we find what one has called sensory organ malfunction language. This is usually, if not always, associated with idolatry. Perhaps this is nowhere more clearly stated than in Ps 115:4—8 (ESV), which reads,
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throats.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust them.
Anyone interested in witnessing this theme fleshed out would do well to consult Dr. Gregory Beale’s recent work We Become What We Worship. Beale does a biblical theology of idolatry in Scripture, especially the lex talionic nature of becoming like the idol so cherished by the worshipper; they, like the idol, become deaf, mute, lifeless and “worthless.”
We’ll stop here for today, but I wanted to share this much now so as to provide a paradigm for future posts that will rest upon and assume the general observations above. There are literally hundreds of demonstrations of this principle in Scripture (believe me, I’ve been accumulating a list for about two years now). Thus, if 1) the lex talion is a reflection of God moral character and his justice, and 2) the principle underlies so many of God’s dealings with men and nations in Scripture, then we’d do well to understand this theme as much as possible, and make applications in our interpretation and experience.
Blessings to you on this glorious Lord’s Day!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
THEODICY: WHY HAS GOD ALLOWED SIN AND EVIL?
Surely, no other question can have a more precarious nature that this one before us. And no other question that could be asked us is more philosophical and theological and yet at the same time more practical for a Christian. In times of suffering and loss even the most pious Christian will utter the timeless words: “WHY, LORD!?!” This question is at the very heart of ministry. Long before any church congregant will ask a young minister to explain the extent and nature of the Atonement; the mysteries of the Trinity; the Incarnation or who the “Israel of God” might be, will first face the daunting words of a grieving mother’s cry, “why, pastor, why?!?” Therefore, lest we think this question and any possible explanations of it are a bit to abstract for any practical purposes, we should think again, as even our own hearts cry the same thing from time to time.
It should also be noted that no other question in the history of theology has been more subject to crass speculation and conjecture as this one. In seeking to answer this, one walks a very narrow ridge of orthodoxy with the slippery slopes of heretical mire on both sides. Thus, the guard rails of Deut 29:29 are a most fitting place to begin, here the Word says to us: “the secret things belong to the Yahweh our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever...” This verse is telling us that there are things that lie only within the secret counsel of God, things that would be dangerous, if not wicked, to try to pry into. Nevertheless, the verse also promises some answers. And I believe that God has revealed much toward answering the question before us. Thus, we must accept an answer given by God in the scriptures or remain anxiously mystified in a cloud of ignorance or worse, impious guesswork.
Therefore, I wish to (I) restate the question in its traditional philosophical/theological formulation. Then look briefly at what God has revealed about (II) himself and (III) at least one of the purposes for sin offered by the scriptures; all in keeping with the implicit warning of Deut 29:29.
I. THE QUESTION IN ITS TRADITIONAL FORMULATION
The following form of our question is perhaps one of the most cogent objections asserted by unbelievers toward the falsity of biblical Christianity. It is claimed that the following syllogism generates a good and necessary conclusion that negates the existence of the revealed God of Christianity; thus, at this foundational level Christianity allegedly hangs on a logical contradiction and is therefore refuted. Let us see how this would look.
A. The Traditional Argument:
(1) If God where all-powerful (omnipotent), he would be able to eliminate sin. (2) If God where all-good (omnibenevolent), he would desire to eliminate sin. Nevertheless, (3) sin is a reality in the created order. We must therefore conclude that (4) the all-powerful, all-good God revealed in the Bible does not exist.
Now, it may appear that the Christian has been presented with an insurmountable logical conundrum. However, refuting the Christian God is not going to be that simple. First, the unbeliever, having concluded that God does not exist, must now attempt to identify and define “sin” (or “evil” as in most philosophical discussions) apart from the existence of the Christian’s Ultimate moral reference point—the holy and righteous God of the Bible. Without the God of the Bible nothing can be called “sinful” or “evil” with any degree of cogency and rationality, for without him there is no real difference between “good-righteousness” and “evil-sin.” Thus, the only way for the unbeliever to thrust the “problem of sin-evil” upon the Christian is to first assume the correctness of the Christian’s position; namely, that this God does in fact exist, for only if he does is there really a “problem” with sin/evil.
The unbeliever may reply however, “OK, I may not be able to call anything ‘sin,’ but you Christian’s do, so the problem remains, even if only within your own worldview or theology. Therefore, you must provide an answer that would avoid a logical contradiction, even if only in the confines of your own theology!” To this we respond, fine.
Simply adding a prejudicially precluded premise to the above syllogism--one that is quite consistent with Christian doctrine--will destroy the logical “sting” of the argument and expose the true nature of the problem; the psychological reason for the objection.
B. The Re-formulation:
As Christians we need not object to any of the premises in the above argument (1, 2, and 3), it is the conclusion (4) that cannot not stand. The elimination of the unbeliever’s conclusion (4) is quite easily achieved by adding a forth premise, one which flows naturally out of premise (2). The Christian must insist that (5) God must necessarily have then a morally sufficient reason for the sin and evil present in his created world. Therefore, (6) it is not the case that the God of the Bible does not exist. It can be seen from this reformulation that, in truth, the Christian does not hold to a logical contradiction between a belief in the True God as revealed in the Bible over and against the reality of sin and evil in the world that this all-good, all-powerful God created.
Although this does away with the logical problem of sin and evil, given human nature, it evokes a psychological problem not altogether different, it is our nature to ask: “what then is that ‘morally sufficient reason’ that God has?!?”
C. Toward an Answer:
It would seem that I have just spent this time begging our question full circle, returning back where it began. If in keeping with Deut 29:29 I thought that God had not “revealed” enough data to inform at least one “reason” for sin then, yes, the conversation must end where it began; however, I don’t feel this to be the case. Rather, God has revealed quite enough to safely conclude something toward an answer to the question. I also recognize that when the solution I shall offer is presented it itself is able to generate further “whys,” and it is at this point God’s words to the waves are no less appropriate to human reason, to which he says, “Thus far shall you come, and no further, and here shall your proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:11 ESV). The only resource with which we may find answers begins at Gen 1:1 and ends at Rev 22:21. Beyond this we are constrained to sing with Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Rom 11:33 ESV).
II. NECESSARY ATTRIBUTES OF GOD REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE
I will now set forth nine attributes of God that are necessarily integral to him being the God he has revealed himself to be, they are: 1) power; 2) wrath; 3) patience; 4) glory; 5) just; 6) true; 7) holy; 8) mercy, and 9) righteous. Each of these is imbedded within the five corollary scripture texts I will argue my position from. The reason for including this list of attributes will hopefully become clear in the following section.
III. ONE POSSIBLE MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SIN
There are five passages that I find teaching us one, if not the only morally sufficient reason and purpose for God allowing sin. This list of texts begin with Rom 9:14—23. In this passage Paul rhetorically asks “What if God...” (v. 22). I believe this clause is best taken as a first class conditional; that is to say, Paul assumes the certain truth of the “what if” clause for sake of argument; simply a rhetoric device implying “because.” This is buttressed by reason of the preceding verses and their illustrating the point of the argument with an actual, historical, scriptural case, being personified in lives of Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 15—17). In our search for a “purpose” in sin there is another notable mark in this passage, it is found at the beginning of v. 23. The Greek word here is ίνα (hina), and this, the NASB has best: “in order that.” This clause not only indicates the result of God’s righteous “wrath” and “power” and “patience” demonstrated against sin in v. 22, but also states its purpose, that of making known his “glory” and “mercy” toward his redeemed “vessels of mercy” in v. 23.
Thus, if these observations are sound, Paul’s argument may stand as such: God raises up vessels (e.g. Pharaoh and Egypt, v. 17) and in much patience, through their own willful sin, they fit themselves to be objects or vessels of God’s righteous wrath, judgment and destruction; for the purpose of and with the result being God’s glory in mercy being revealed in his redeemed vessels (e.g. Moses and Israel, v. 15), that his name might be greatly glorified in all the earth.
This same concept found in Rom 9 explodes into a full scale eschatological reality in four other passages in Revelation (Rev 11:16—18; 15:3—4; 16:5—7; 19:1—5; cf. Is 63). In each of these texts God’s holiness, righteousness, justice, power, truth, and final wrath are being displayed in the judgment of sin and become the very reasons for songs of praise, worship and thanksgiving from the mouths of the redeemed and the elect angels.
In chapter 11 the twenty four elders “give thanks” to the Almighty because he has taken his great power and in wrath destroyed the raging nations. In chapter 15 there is the direct reference to Moses (v. 3, cf. Rom 9:14—23) and the remix of his song from Ex 15:1ff; now know as "the song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb." And again the same theme and end presented in the Rom 9 passage comes out: God is glorified by the redeemed in his judgment of sin; his name is glorified, and in all the earth (v. 4; cf. Rom 9:17b). The same theme is true with the other two passages in Revelation (16:5—7, and 19:1—5).
SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION
Now I will summarize the argument and offer a concluding statement. As we have seen: (1) the reality and presence of sin in the world in no way precludes the God of the Christian worldview; but rather, one must assume his existence to even talk intelligibly about sin and evil. Thus, (2) sin does not cause any logical problems for the Christian, because he knows that God has a morally sufficient reason for sin being present in the world. Also noted was that (3) the God of the Bible reveals himself as a Self-sufficient, Self-enclosed being with certain attributes which are immutable and absolute. Some of which can only be demonstrated in the face and judgment of sin (i.e. Sect. II; #’s 2 & 8; “wrath” and “mercy”), while the others are merely magnified in their brilliance and glory in the same. (4) The scriptures offer no less than five passages (+ Is. 63) that indicate that at least one, if not the only, morally sufficient reason and /or purpose for sin being present in the world is that God may demonstrate his nature and glorify his name “in all the earth.”
Therefore, given the validity and soundness of the foregone premises, one may conclude that the presence of sin in the world was an ordained means of God to the end that he and he alone may be glorified as Holy Judge and Merciful Redeemer. Hence, God allows sin to thereby glorify himself.
One could go on from this conclusion to ask further, “Why did God ordain it as such?” I believe this is the end at which “the proud waves must stop.” To go any further moves from the “things revealed” into “the secret things,” thus violating the mandate of Deut 29:29—where God stately says, “NO TRESSPASSING-KEEP OUT!”
The answer I have proposed often finds psychological objections in our mind; we are tempted to respond with “that’s not very fair,” then assuming that what God has said in his word about this topic is not morally sufficient and moreover kind of a selfish motive (see: Rom 9:19—21). With this notion, one would do well to survey Gen 3, since those types of questions are precisely what thrust sin into our world in the first place. Thus, to question further is not to seek an answer concerning the sin problem, but to recapitulate it in our own minds.
It should also be noted that no other question in the history of theology has been more subject to crass speculation and conjecture as this one. In seeking to answer this, one walks a very narrow ridge of orthodoxy with the slippery slopes of heretical mire on both sides. Thus, the guard rails of Deut 29:29 are a most fitting place to begin, here the Word says to us: “the secret things belong to the Yahweh our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever...” This verse is telling us that there are things that lie only within the secret counsel of God, things that would be dangerous, if not wicked, to try to pry into. Nevertheless, the verse also promises some answers. And I believe that God has revealed much toward answering the question before us. Thus, we must accept an answer given by God in the scriptures or remain anxiously mystified in a cloud of ignorance or worse, impious guesswork.
Therefore, I wish to (I) restate the question in its traditional philosophical/theological formulation. Then look briefly at what God has revealed about (II) himself and (III) at least one of the purposes for sin offered by the scriptures; all in keeping with the implicit warning of Deut 29:29.
I. THE QUESTION IN ITS TRADITIONAL FORMULATION
The following form of our question is perhaps one of the most cogent objections asserted by unbelievers toward the falsity of biblical Christianity. It is claimed that the following syllogism generates a good and necessary conclusion that negates the existence of the revealed God of Christianity; thus, at this foundational level Christianity allegedly hangs on a logical contradiction and is therefore refuted. Let us see how this would look.
A. The Traditional Argument:
(1) If God where all-powerful (omnipotent), he would be able to eliminate sin. (2) If God where all-good (omnibenevolent), he would desire to eliminate sin. Nevertheless, (3) sin is a reality in the created order. We must therefore conclude that (4) the all-powerful, all-good God revealed in the Bible does not exist.
Now, it may appear that the Christian has been presented with an insurmountable logical conundrum. However, refuting the Christian God is not going to be that simple. First, the unbeliever, having concluded that God does not exist, must now attempt to identify and define “sin” (or “evil” as in most philosophical discussions) apart from the existence of the Christian’s Ultimate moral reference point—the holy and righteous God of the Bible. Without the God of the Bible nothing can be called “sinful” or “evil” with any degree of cogency and rationality, for without him there is no real difference between “good-righteousness” and “evil-sin.” Thus, the only way for the unbeliever to thrust the “problem of sin-evil” upon the Christian is to first assume the correctness of the Christian’s position; namely, that this God does in fact exist, for only if he does is there really a “problem” with sin/evil.
The unbeliever may reply however, “OK, I may not be able to call anything ‘sin,’ but you Christian’s do, so the problem remains, even if only within your own worldview or theology. Therefore, you must provide an answer that would avoid a logical contradiction, even if only in the confines of your own theology!” To this we respond, fine.
Simply adding a prejudicially precluded premise to the above syllogism--one that is quite consistent with Christian doctrine--will destroy the logical “sting” of the argument and expose the true nature of the problem; the psychological reason for the objection.
B. The Re-formulation:
As Christians we need not object to any of the premises in the above argument (1, 2, and 3), it is the conclusion (4) that cannot not stand. The elimination of the unbeliever’s conclusion (4) is quite easily achieved by adding a forth premise, one which flows naturally out of premise (2). The Christian must insist that (5) God must necessarily have then a morally sufficient reason for the sin and evil present in his created world. Therefore, (6) it is not the case that the God of the Bible does not exist. It can be seen from this reformulation that, in truth, the Christian does not hold to a logical contradiction between a belief in the True God as revealed in the Bible over and against the reality of sin and evil in the world that this all-good, all-powerful God created.
Although this does away with the logical problem of sin and evil, given human nature, it evokes a psychological problem not altogether different, it is our nature to ask: “what then is that ‘morally sufficient reason’ that God has?!?”
C. Toward an Answer:
It would seem that I have just spent this time begging our question full circle, returning back where it began. If in keeping with Deut 29:29 I thought that God had not “revealed” enough data to inform at least one “reason” for sin then, yes, the conversation must end where it began; however, I don’t feel this to be the case. Rather, God has revealed quite enough to safely conclude something toward an answer to the question. I also recognize that when the solution I shall offer is presented it itself is able to generate further “whys,” and it is at this point God’s words to the waves are no less appropriate to human reason, to which he says, “Thus far shall you come, and no further, and here shall your proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:11 ESV). The only resource with which we may find answers begins at Gen 1:1 and ends at Rev 22:21. Beyond this we are constrained to sing with Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Rom 11:33 ESV).
II. NECESSARY ATTRIBUTES OF GOD REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE
I will now set forth nine attributes of God that are necessarily integral to him being the God he has revealed himself to be, they are: 1) power; 2) wrath; 3) patience; 4) glory; 5) just; 6) true; 7) holy; 8) mercy, and 9) righteous. Each of these is imbedded within the five corollary scripture texts I will argue my position from. The reason for including this list of attributes will hopefully become clear in the following section.
III. ONE POSSIBLE MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SIN
There are five passages that I find teaching us one, if not the only morally sufficient reason and purpose for God allowing sin. This list of texts begin with Rom 9:14—23. In this passage Paul rhetorically asks “What if God...” (v. 22). I believe this clause is best taken as a first class conditional; that is to say, Paul assumes the certain truth of the “what if” clause for sake of argument; simply a rhetoric device implying “because.” This is buttressed by reason of the preceding verses and their illustrating the point of the argument with an actual, historical, scriptural case, being personified in lives of Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 15—17). In our search for a “purpose” in sin there is another notable mark in this passage, it is found at the beginning of v. 23. The Greek word here is ίνα (hina), and this, the NASB has best: “in order that.” This clause not only indicates the result of God’s righteous “wrath” and “power” and “patience” demonstrated against sin in v. 22, but also states its purpose, that of making known his “glory” and “mercy” toward his redeemed “vessels of mercy” in v. 23.
Thus, if these observations are sound, Paul’s argument may stand as such: God raises up vessels (e.g. Pharaoh and Egypt, v. 17) and in much patience, through their own willful sin, they fit themselves to be objects or vessels of God’s righteous wrath, judgment and destruction; for the purpose of and with the result being God’s glory in mercy being revealed in his redeemed vessels (e.g. Moses and Israel, v. 15), that his name might be greatly glorified in all the earth.
This same concept found in Rom 9 explodes into a full scale eschatological reality in four other passages in Revelation (Rev 11:16—18; 15:3—4; 16:5—7; 19:1—5; cf. Is 63). In each of these texts God’s holiness, righteousness, justice, power, truth, and final wrath are being displayed in the judgment of sin and become the very reasons for songs of praise, worship and thanksgiving from the mouths of the redeemed and the elect angels.
In chapter 11 the twenty four elders “give thanks” to the Almighty because he has taken his great power and in wrath destroyed the raging nations. In chapter 15 there is the direct reference to Moses (v. 3, cf. Rom 9:14—23) and the remix of his song from Ex 15:1ff; now know as "the song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb." And again the same theme and end presented in the Rom 9 passage comes out: God is glorified by the redeemed in his judgment of sin; his name is glorified, and in all the earth (v. 4; cf. Rom 9:17b). The same theme is true with the other two passages in Revelation (16:5—7, and 19:1—5).
SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION
Now I will summarize the argument and offer a concluding statement. As we have seen: (1) the reality and presence of sin in the world in no way precludes the God of the Christian worldview; but rather, one must assume his existence to even talk intelligibly about sin and evil. Thus, (2) sin does not cause any logical problems for the Christian, because he knows that God has a morally sufficient reason for sin being present in the world. Also noted was that (3) the God of the Bible reveals himself as a Self-sufficient, Self-enclosed being with certain attributes which are immutable and absolute. Some of which can only be demonstrated in the face and judgment of sin (i.e. Sect. II; #’s 2 & 8; “wrath” and “mercy”), while the others are merely magnified in their brilliance and glory in the same. (4) The scriptures offer no less than five passages (+ Is. 63) that indicate that at least one, if not the only, morally sufficient reason and /or purpose for sin being present in the world is that God may demonstrate his nature and glorify his name “in all the earth.”
Therefore, given the validity and soundness of the foregone premises, one may conclude that the presence of sin in the world was an ordained means of God to the end that he and he alone may be glorified as Holy Judge and Merciful Redeemer. Hence, God allows sin to thereby glorify himself.
One could go on from this conclusion to ask further, “Why did God ordain it as such?” I believe this is the end at which “the proud waves must stop.” To go any further moves from the “things revealed” into “the secret things,” thus violating the mandate of Deut 29:29—where God stately says, “NO TRESSPASSING-KEEP OUT!”
The answer I have proposed often finds psychological objections in our mind; we are tempted to respond with “that’s not very fair,” then assuming that what God has said in his word about this topic is not morally sufficient and moreover kind of a selfish motive (see: Rom 9:19—21). With this notion, one would do well to survey Gen 3, since those types of questions are precisely what thrust sin into our world in the first place. Thus, to question further is not to seek an answer concerning the sin problem, but to recapitulate it in our own minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)