The God of the Old Testament — Part 14: The Eternal Covenant

By Mark L. Carlton

After the flood God entered into a covenant with the human race.[i]  This is the only covenant that God made with the entire human race.  It is called, “The Everlasting Covenant between God and Man and Every Living Creature of All Flesh that is upon the Earth.“[ii]  It has often been referred to as the Noahic Covenant.   I will be referring to it by its Biblical name, “The Eternal Covenant”.  

Some have viewed the Eternal Covenant as the beginning of human government.  I am sure there were human governments before the flood, but I will agree that the Eternal Covenant marks the beginning of God ordained human government.  Perhaps the most significant thing about the Eternal Covenant is that it places the sword of justice in the hands of man. 

With the establishment of the Eternal Covenant, God began to hold human race responsible for administering justice on His behalf.  Specifically, government is to use the sword God has place in its hands to protect human life, and execute those who would prey upon the lives of fellowman.[iii] 

For our purposes the delegating of justice to man is vital to an understanding of the God of the Bible.  Perhaps the fullest explanation of the God ordained role of Government is found in the thirteenth chapter of Romans.  There, no doubt thinking back to the Eternal Covenant, Paul affirms that God has placed the sword of justice in the hands of human government. 

The specific sword Paul refers in Romans 13 is the machaira, or the executioner’s sword.  Paul says the in the lawful use of this sword government is acting as “a minister of God for good.”    

Paul is speaking of the sword both literally and metaphorically.  In context he defines the role of government as an authority established by God to reward good and punish evil.  This is actually a very nice definition of justice.  True justice should include both reward and retribution.  The righteous should be rewarded and the wicked punished.  Justice should ultimately consist of giving every man or woman what they have coming.  And in ordaining human government, God was delegating a portion of His work of justice to human agency.

I would also suggest that the proper administration of justice requires passion.  Justice may be blind but it must never be indifferent.  Our own sense of justice speaks of this.  For example, when we read of the brutal rape and murder of a child such as Jessica Lansford, good men and women are outraged, and rightly so.   Anger is not necessarily a sin, though often sin results from it.  There is a righteous indignation, and there is a holy indignation.   The Old Testament sometimes refers to it as the jealousy of God, but more often we speak of it as the wrath of God.

It is interesting to me that in speaking of human government the apostle Paul refers to it as, “a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”  I note that both vengeance and wrath are the proper functions of human government towards those who practice evil.   The Eternal Covenant also makes it the responsibility of Government. 

But as I read the Old Testament I note that God anticipates that our natural tendency to empathize with one another will make it difficult for human government to administer justice.  And so we read things like this:

“But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies…you shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may be well with you.”[iv]

This tendency to feel compassion toward our own is the one of the reasons justice is so often miscarried by judges.  We are often scandalized these days when a judge gives out a light sentence to someone who has committed some terrible crime, and we wonder; “How can s/he do that?” 

The psychology of the judge is really more easily understood than most will admit.  In fact, we might do the same thing were we in his or her place.  We know only of the crime that has been committed, but as the trial unfolds the judge hears the defendant’s story.  The judge sees the defendant’s family sitting on the other side of the bar.  He sees the look in defendant’s eyes.   He sees his fear, his remorse.  He sees him smile, and maybe laugh during a lighter moment. 

As the trial progresses the judge begins to feel compassion toward the defendant.  The victim gradually becomes a photograph.  But sitting before the judge day after day is a real, living, breathing, feeling human being,  a person really not that much different from the judge in many ways.  And so the judge, moved by pity, passes down a sentence that denies the victim the justice.  It is hard to be a judge.

We want our judges to be compassionate, and we will allow a few mistakes.  But when a judge consistently allows compassion to trump justice, then an outraged public will cry for his or her removal from the bench.  Why?  Is the judge a bad person?  Not usually.  The sorts of judges we are discussing are often very compassionate people.  But they are just lousy judges, because justice requires a smoldering righteous outrage at evil, and a willingness to administer the wrath on those who practice it. 

The wrath of God was pictured in the tabernacle and then later in the temple by the bronze altar.  It was carefully maintained so that it was always burning.   God is merciful and compassionate too, but when His goodness was revealed to Moses it is important to note that it also included justice; His unwillingness to allow the wicked to go unpunished. 

Some are bothered by this aspect of the divine character, thus this series of messages.  We find individuals like Oprah Winfrey telling us to lose this concept of a jealous God.  What they are really asking for is an unjust God.  But is this really what we want?   If a human judge who winks at evil and acquits the wicked is abhorrent to us, then why would we desire it in the Judge of all the earth?

May I suggest a reason?   Might the unstated reason why so many are offended by the God of the Old Testament be their fear that if God judged in the past He just might do it again? 

As a mock trial coach, I am a friend of two county judges and one district judge.  In fact, last year our county judge was our attorney coach.  I have no fear of these judges.  In fact, I appreciate them.  I am comforted by the fact that we have such good people administering justice here in western Nebraska.  But if I broke the law I would dread standing in front of them.  Is our real problem with the wrath of God based on similar sentiments?

The fact that there is a God who is outraged by human wickedness and committed to dealing with it is a comfort to me.  But then, through Jesus Christ I have been justified, and I have been assured that “In Christ there is no condemnation.”[v]  But what of those who the Bible says are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God?[vi]

Jesus said this about them; “that the Holy Spirit is convicting them of sin, righteousness and judgment.”   This means that there is a universal sense of guilt among those who do not believe; a sense that there is a righteous standard that we somehow fail to reach.  And because of this we fear the judgment of God.   Though a man may claim that he does not believe in God, it is a rare man who isn’t afraid to die.  

Point a gun at an atheist and he or she will be as frightened as anyone else.  Of what?  What is so frightening about death if it is just an endless, painless sleep?  Could it be that Jesus was right?  Could it be that there is a conviction buried deep within us that it is appointed unto man once to die and after death the judgment?

I’ll end with this from the book, Whatever Happened to Sin? by the late Karl Menninger.

On a sunny day in September, 1972, a stern-faced, plainly dressed man could be seen standing still on a street corner in the busy Chicago Loop. As pedestrian hurried by on their way to lunch or business, he would solemnly lift his right arm, and pointing to the person nearest him, and solemnly states loudly the single word, “GUILTY!”

Then without any change of expression, he would resume his stiff stance for a few moments before repeating the gesture. Then, again, the inexorable raising of his arm, the pointing, and the solemn pronouncing of the one word “GUILTY!”

The effect of this strange j’accuse pantomime on the passing strangers was extraordinary, almost eerie. They would stare at him, hesitate, look away, look at each other, and then at him again; then hurriedly continue on their ways.

One man, turning to another who was my informant, exclaimed, “But how did he know?”

“Guilty!” Everyone guilty? Guilty of what? Guilty of overparking? Guilty of lying? Guilty of arrogance and hubris toward the one God? Guilty of “borrowing,” not to say embezzling? Guilty of unfaithfulness to a faithful wife? Guilty of evil thoughts - or evil plans?

Guilty before whom? Is a police officer following? Did anyone see? Will they be likely to notice it? Does he know about it? But that isn’t technically illegal, is it?

I can make it up. I will give it back. I’ll apologize. I wasn’t myself when I did that. No one knew about it. But I’m going to quit. It’s a dangerous habit. I wouldn’t want the children to see me. How can I ever straighten it out? What’s done can’t be undone.

If Menninger is painting an accurate picture, then it is no wonder to me that modern man fears the God of the Old Testament.  Indeed if He has judged before, He might just do it again.

[ii] Genesis 9:16

[iii] c.f. Romans 13:1-7

[iv] Deuteronomy 19:11-13

[v] Roman 8:1

[vi] John 3:18

Note: I first published this essay  in February.  From time to time I remove some articles that have not drawn much attention.  I recently did this with this essay.  However, I have learned that an atheist website has referenced it and that an article has been written in response to it.  I am republishing a edited version of it, so that those who are interested can read the entire article in context.  — Mark

During his sermon last Sunday our senior pastor said that as far as the Bible is concerned, atheism is a moral not a knowledge problem. The Psalmist’s statement, “the fool has said in his heart; there is no God,” notwithstanding, our pastor’s statement is substantially correct.  In the past I have often made the same point more broadly by saying, “There is plenty of evidence for believing if you want to believe. Unbelief is not an evidentiary problem, but a moral one. “

Now you may disagree with both of our statements. If you are an atheist or an unbeliever I have no doubt that you do. But from time to time there have been a few unbelievers honest enough to admit it. That’s why I posted this quote by the well known atheist, Aldous Huxley:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning: consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption….for myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

This is a remarkable testimony, and one which many others could make if they were honest about it. In his book, What’s So Great about Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza has a chapter entitled, Opiate of the Morally Corrupt: Why Unbelief is So Appealing. In this chapter he argues that one of the reasons atheism is so attractive to many is that it liberates them to enjoy ”the pleasures of sin for a season.”

Other writers, such as Paul Johnson, in his book, Intellectuals, and E. Michael Jones, in Degenerate Moderns, have made the same point. In these books the authors present powerful evidence in support of the proposition that the main reason for the apeal of unbelief among many of the leading lights of modern infidelity, is - or was - their desire to be liberated from “a certain system of morality…because it interfered with [their] sexual freedom. “

But for unbelievers and atheists who live what almost anyone would consider a  moral life, the very suggestion that their unbelief is rooted in immorality is offensive. The reason for this is that this culture tends to define morality on the basis of an individual’s treatment of other human beings. But remember, in this post I am defining morality as it is defined in scripture, especially in light of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus was once asked; “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?” His answer was that the greatest commandment is that we love the Lord with all of our heart, soul and mind. He went on to define the second most important commandment for us; that we love our neighbor as ourselves.

Notice that Jesus placed our love of God on a higher level than our love for our fellow man. He then went on to add that the entire law hangs on these two commandments. His point was that commandments 1-5 hang on the greatest commandment, and commandments 6-10 hang on the second.

Understanding this truth almost drove the young Martin Luther to insanity. He reasoned, I think correctly, that if loving God with all of our heart soul and mind is the greatest commandment, then not loving God must be the greatest sin a human being can commit.  Luther then set out to obey the great commandment. But he soon discovered that no matter how hard he tried he could not love the Lord with all of his heart, soul and mind. As a result, Luther began to be tormented in his conscience, even by the smallest sins. But rather than driving him to insanity, Luther’s conviction of sin drove him to rediscover the truth of salvation by grace through faith.

Now, taking Luther’s initial observation, and applying it to the subject of this post - the morality of unbelief - I think it is safe to say that as far as the Bible is concerned the greatest sin a person can commit is the sin of unbelief. The Bible assures us, for example, that it is the only sin for which there is no forgiveness. The Bible also warns us that it is the only sin for which men and women will ultimately be damned (John 3:18). So from a Biblical standpoint, unbelief is worse than murder, adultery, stealing, perjury or covetousness. From a Biblical perspective; the hubris that refuses to even acknowledge one’s creator is the greatest of act of immorality a human being is capable of committing.

It should also be pointed out that the motive for committing this sin is also worse than those that would move someone to commit a crime such as murder, because ultimately the motive behind this sin is nothing less than deicide and regicide; the desire to do away with God and seize His throne.

I have seen this from time to time in my debates with atheists, as some - like Huxley - have gloried in the meaninglessness of a universe without God, not as an excuse for moral excess, but as an opportunity to celebrate their autonomy. By denying God they can justify for their Godless form of existentialism. By denying God they are liberated to define their own morality, meaning and purpose. They are liberated to become the captains of their fate and the masters of their souls. They are liberated to take to themselves the prerogatives that heretofore - and according to scripture - belong to God. In other words, they want His job! But in order to have it they must kill Him first. Nietzsche - like Huxley, another honest atheist - understood this. But unlike most today, he understood the implications of it too.

The God of the Old Testament - Part 13: How Does God Feel When He Judges?

By Mark L. Carlton

I think it is important that we pause in our survey of the judgments of the Old Testament to focus on a subject I brought up in my previous message, God’s feelings about His own acts of Judgment.  I say this because it has been my observation that in all of the discussions of the God of the Old Testament I have been privy to, the way God feels about His own acts of judgment has never been addressed.     

The very idea that God has emotions is a new thought to many people.  Yet when we look at the God of the Bible we are confronted by a Deity who feels the same sorts of emotions we feel.  This should not surprise us when we stop to think about it.  After all, the Bible says we are made in God’s image and likeness.  So why should we be surprised to discover that He has emotions? 

We might have inferred that God experiences emotions such as joy from the pleasure He took in His creation, when He saw that it was, “very good.[i]“  We might have inferred such emotions as love and compassion from His gracious treatment of Adam, Eve and Cain after their sin.  But beginning with the flood, the Bible begins to specify God’s emotional reactions.   Specifically, we are told that when God saw the wickedness of the antediluvian world He felt both sorrow and grief.[ii]  

Even more remarkable than the fact that God feels emotions is the Bible’s repeated insistence that our actions can cause Him to feel such things as joy or sadness.   Thus the Bible teaches that we human beings are important to God and therefore significant.  Why else would the Creator and Sustainer of the universe take notice, let alone allow Himself to be hurt by the likes of us?  

The importance of understanding that God suffers, and that we can inflict suffering upon Him, is enormous.    In fact, it is a foundation stone of Christianity.  John Polkinghorne explains it this way: “The Christian God is the crucified God, the one who is not just a compassionate spectator of the suffering of creation but a fellow-sharer in the travail of creation.[iii]“ 

To illustrate his point, Polkinghorne refers to something quantum theorists refer to as, “the EPR effect.”  He explains: “The counter-intuitive togetherness-in-separation that implies that two quantum entities that have interacted with each other remain mutually entangled, however they may subsequently separate in space.  Effectively, they remain a single system, for acting on one ‘here’ will produce an immediate effect on its distant partner.[iv]“

As we study the scriptures it does seem that there is some sort of EPR effect between God and his creation, and that the suffering of the broken creation somehow deeply impacts its Creator even though our sin has separated us from the One we once interacted with.   This seems to be especially true of the suffering of the believer.  In fact, the New Testament refers to the suffering of the believer as a continuation of the suffering of Christ Himself.[v] 

Earlier generations of Christians understood this.  For example, consider the world of the old hymn, Does Jesus Care?

                Does Jesus care when my heart is pained

                Too deeply for mirth and song;

                As the burdens press and the cares distress,

                And the way grows weary and long?

                O yes, He cares; I know He cares,

                His heart is touched with my grief;

                When the days are weary, the long nights dreary,

                I know my Savior cares

Perhaps part of the weakness of the modern evangelical church is that it has stopped singing songs of substance that passed down and impressed upon the heart the important truths of the word of God; such truths as this one, that God is touched with our grief.   As a result the average Christian really doesn’t know enough about the God he repetitiously praises in his modern worship songs to be able to answer the questions serious seekers are asking about Him.   

In addressing the world’s questions about the God of the Old Testament it is important that we understand such simple concepts as the idea that the brokenness of this world hurts God, and that even His acts of judgment are not painless exercises in chaotic destruction, but a painful work that God’s own Holiness requires of Him.  

I would encourage those who question the judgments of the God of the Old Testament to read it again, this time ignoring the judgments themselves so that you can focus on the emotions of God.   If you do this you might be surprised to discover that the God of the Old Testament is not the ogre those who hate Him often accuse Him of being.

Sometimes when I hear the new atheists’ attacks on God, I wonder if they are confusing him with some other god.  The arbitrary cruelness they attribute to Him seems to be more in keeping with the gods of other ancient people than the God of the Bible. 

For example, in my last message I referenced the fact that one of the ancient flood myths says that god sent the flood because the human race was too noisy.  In other words, He arbitrarily and cruelly destroyed the people of the earth, not for their sin and wickedness, but because they were getting on his nerves.   The rantings of Richard Dawkins and his parrots would be a fitting rebuke of such an arbitrary deity, but they seem to me to completely miss the mark when talking about the longsuffering God of the Old Testament Who is on record as saying that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. 

So how did God feel about the flood he sent upon the world?  He apparently did not feel that good about it, since He swore afterwards that He would never again curse the world or destroy every living things the way he did it in Noah’s time (with a flood) again.[vi]

But a skeptic might protest, “What about that enormous loss of life?”  Let me offer this very simple response, and it would apply to the other divine judgments we will discuss as well; Since we did not create all of those individuals, it is hard for me to imagine that we could possibly love and care more about them than the longsuffering God Who did.   What I am suggesting is that none would feel the pain of the destruction of creation more than its Creator.  I know this because I am an artist.

 A couple of years ago our local visitor’s committee here in Ogallala embarked upon an ambitious project of purchasing a number of bronze sculptures for our city.  Their first was a horse and rider which was placed on our historic Boot Hill.  If you ever get to Ogallala you really ought to check it out, it is quite impressive.  But there was some controversy that local artists were not given an opportunity to compete for the commission.  The committee’s position was that a work by a “famous” artist would draw tourists.  But they assured us that local artists would have an opportunity to compete for the next statue.

We have a restored a 1920s gas station on our main street in Ogallala.  This year the visitor’s committee announced that they were going to commission the creation of a life sized sculpture of a gas station attendant to place in front of “The Spruce Street Station.”  True to their word, they accepted proposals from both professional and local artists.   From twelve applicants, I was selected as one of the three finalists.  I was the only amateur to make the cut.  Each of the finalists were then given about six weeks to complete a 12″ clay mockette.  

 I was told by a number of our local cynics that I was just chosen so that they could say that a local artist was allowed to compete and that they already knew who they were going to choose.  Another told me that because the driving force on the committee had a personal dislike for me I didn’t have a chance.   I suspected they were right, but I determined to do my best anyway and make the choice difficult for them. 

For the next six weeks I worked hard and produced the best piece I have ever created.  When I took it into the Chamber of Commerce office and compared it to the only other piece that had been submitted at the time, I realized I had accomplished my goal.  My piece was far- and-away the better of the two. 

Several days later, a friend of mine, who is on the visitor’s committee, stopped by my table at the coffee shop and told me that he thought my piece was the most detailed and the best of the three, and that I had a good chance of winning the commission. 

At this point I made the mistake of getting my hopes up.  It was a mistake, because a few days later I received a call from the owner of the foundry telling me they had selected one of the other pieces.   To say I was disappointed would be an understatement.  I was crushed.  My heart was broken because I will believe till my dying day that mine was the better piece and that considerations other than the quality of the work made the decision. 

 So, what is an artist with a 12″ clay mockette — that he cannot afford to cast and that he wouldn’t have a buyer for anyway — to do?  After all, unless one has a restored 1920s filling station, there is not much demand for a 1920s filling station attendant.   Also, what does an artist do with his deep hurt and the  sense that he has been the victim of an injustice? 

My very immature answer was to roll my mockette into a tangled ball of wire, paper, tape, foil and clay, and toss it in a dumpster.   It was probably not the right thing to do, I have regretted doing it.  But I did it, and having done it I can tell you how a creator feels after destroying a valued creation. 

 I can tell you that it gave me no pleasure in doing it.   In fact, it was one of the most painful things I have ever done.  It was like rolling up my heart and throwing it away.  I hate to admit it, but I cried for about a half an hour afterwards, and It makes me sad to think or write about it to this very day.   In fact, as it stands today, I am planning on giving all of my existing sculptures to my children and I do not ever intend to sculpt again[vii].    

 So, how does a creator feel when he destroys a beloved creation?   I assure you, it is not a good feeling.  So let me suggest that rather than visualizing God as a vengeful, sadistic tyrant, we view Him as grieving over a creation that must be judged by a just yet longsuffering God, who feels more pain in judging than we can ever comprehend.

[ii] Genesis 6:5-6

[iii] John Polkinghorn/ Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship  p. 21

[iv] Ibid

[v] Acts 22:7-8; Colossian 1:24

[vi] Genesis 8:21; 9:11

[vii] Subject to change if offered the chance to compete for another commission

The God of the Old Testament – Part 12: The Rampages of Nature and the Pain of God

By Mark L. Carlton

Two weeks ago my wife and I witnessed and were almost victims of a rampage of nature in central Nebraska.   We were on the way to Branson, Missouri and were almost caught in the tornados that eventually hit Kearney, Grand Island and Aurora, Nebraska. 

Growing up in the Midwest I have been through many bad storms and tornado warnings, but this was the first time I have ever seen a tornado.  Actually, we saw three tornados and there was another one about 100 yards from us that kicked up so much dirt that we couldn’t see it.

We were parked at a rest stop at the time, hoping to wait out the storm.  But when a big sign came cart-wheeling in front of us I decided to make a run for it.   We arrived at the Kearney interchange just as the storm sirens started to sound, so we decided to keep driving.  Fortunately, we finally outran the storm.

The Weather Channel has a regular feature about these sorts of events;  they call it, The Wrath of God.  Insurance companies refer to the damage they cause as “acts of God.”   But what is really happening when a cyclone or a tornado strikes and leaves a trail of death and destruction in its wake? 

My reading of the Old Testament (and I think the New Testament too) leads me to answer the question, sometimes.  As I have previously written, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.  In fact, we live in a world that has been cursed as a result of human sin.  Because of this, sometimes accursed things happen.

Jesus once weighed in on a couple of accursed events that happened in His day.  It all began when He was asked about an atrocity committed by the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.  Pilate had apparently killed some men from Galilee who had come to the temple to worship.  In the process, their blood had been mingled with the blood of their sacrifices.  In commenting on this outrage Jesus also referred to another event, one of those acts of God.  The tower of Siloam in Jerusalem apparently collapsed killing 18 men.

In commenting on these tragedies Jesus told us that we should not assume that those who died in these tragedies were worse sinners that other men.     But, interestingly, Jesus did not deny that their deaths were a result of a more general judgment of sin.  On the contrary, He warned his listeners to learn a lesson from these tragedies.  What lesson?  That “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish[i] “

Jesus’ answer may seem harsh, yet if my life had been taken by the tornados that struck central Nebraska I would hope that a similar message would be given at my funeral.  If fact, I would hope the pastor would use Luke 13:1-5 as his text.  I would hope that he would use my death to remind those few who gathered to mourn me that they should remember that their day will come too.  I would hope that he would remind them of the point I made in last week’s sermon; we live our lives on the Green Mile, death row.  And barring repentance, none of us is going to get out of here alive.  

 Truly the scriptures are correct in declaring; “it is appointed unto man once to die,”[ii]  and someday, when the bell tolls for us, something natural, something of this world, is going to be listed as the cause of our death.   So whether we die as a result of diseases, plagues, crime, war or natural disaster, someday something will cause our death.   But the Bible points to a deeper cause.  Paul said it best, “The wages of sin is death,[iii]” and since all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, there is a sense in which the physical death of every man and woman is used either to carry out the sentence we have earned, or in the case of the forgiven, as the means God will use to bring us home.

So God may in fact use a tornado, or the butchery of a tyrant like Pilate for purposes of judgment.  In fact, Christians believe this is exactly how God used Pilate in the case of Jesus.  But in a broader sense, a cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that sometimes God uses tragedy to judge peoples and civilizations that have sinned so grievously His goodness demands that His justice remove them.  What I mean is that there comes a time when God would cease to be good if He did not use some means to judge the wicked.  The first example the Bible gives us of this principle is the Great Flood.   

In responding to one of my earlier arguments an atheist acquaintance argued that my God was a sadist.  One of the things he pointed to was God’s killing of millions of innocent people in the flood.  But in bringing this accusation against the God he chose to reject what the Bible says about the reasons for the flood.   The Bible says the flood was sent upon a world that had it coming:

                “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”[iv]

                “Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.  And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.”[v]

                “Then God said, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them…”[vi]

Now I know that someone will ask, “What about the children?”  I do not intend to dodge the question.  However, I will be deferring my answer to it until my discussion on the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.   But for now I would ask you to meditate upon a statement God made after the waters of the flood had cleansed the earth: “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”[vii]

Now let us consider some of the lessons we learn about the God of Old Testament from the story of the flood.   In the Bible’s first recorded judgment, the judgment of Adam and Eve, we learned that God had established a moral order in the universe, and that He expects humankind to submit to His moral will as it is revealed to them.  We also saw that He was compassionate and gracious to the sinning couple.  In the second judgment, the judgment of Cain and Abel, we learn that God hates murder and that He is the avenger of innocent blood.  But once again we note His mercy in His decision to allow Cain to live, even though he had taken the life of his brother.   But with the flood we begin to learn things about the God of the Old Testament that set Him apart from every other god men have ever worshipped.    

Beginning with the flood, we begin to see just how much God hates sin.  We still see His grace and mercy in such things as the preservation of Noah and his family and in the 120 years he gave the human race to avoid the judgment of the flood by responding with repentance to the preaching of Noah.[viii]   Had there been no flood, we might be deluded into thinking that God is not all that bothered by human sin.   After all, in the years from Cain to Noah we see God doing nothing about the growing wickedness on the earth.  This could be interpreted as indifference.  But with the flood we have our first glimpse of the wrath of God, and we begin to see just how much He hates sin.   We also note that God is indeed willing to use the forces of nature to pour out devastating judgment on the wicked.  We will see it again as we continue our survey of the Old Testament, and the New Testament warns us that we will see it again at the end of the age.

But there are other things we learn about the God of the Old Testament from the Genesis flood.   We note that He sees and knows what is going on in the earth, and just as important, He is impacted by what He sees.   Here we see what we might have missed; the God of the universe has emotions; He even feels pain… and our actions cause it.  Consider what is said about God in the verses we quoted earlier in this message: “The Lord was sorry…He was grieved in His heart.”   Commenting on this, the late, Francis Schaeffer, made this observation: 

“We begin to lose our humanity as soon as we begin to lose the emphasis that what we do makes a difference.  We can glorify God, and both the Old and New Testament say that we can even make God sad.  That is tremendous.”

Indeed, it is tremendous.  In one of the ancient pagan flood stories, God destroys the world because people are too noisy.    The God of this theological system is arbitrary and cruel.   It posits an angry, vengeful God who delights in the destruction of the world.  This theology has found a home in the theology of many of God’s modern critics.  But is this an accurate picture of the God of the Old Testament?  I think not.

The Old Testament says God “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”[ix]  The Bible speaks of a longsuffering God[x] — “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger.[xi]”  Read the Old Testament prophets; there you will see a God mourning the sin of His people and agonizing over the judgment their sins are bringing down upon them.  

When I read the Bible, Old Testament or New, I see a God who suffers when we suffer, even when our suffering is our own fault.   When I read about the flood I read about a God who graciously reached out His hands to a doomed humanity for 120 years before a judgment that justice could no longer defer was finally poured out upon them; and I see a grieving creator doing away with something He loved and would have preferred not to destroy.  As an artist, I think I can in some measure understand His emotion.  I will be discussing this in next week’s sermon.          

The God of the Old Testament – Part 11: Dealing with the World’s First Murderer

By Mark L. Carlton

I misspoke in last week’s message when I said that the flood was the second recorded instance of God’s judgment of sin.  I forgot about his judgment of the first murderer, Cain.  God’s judgment of Cain is  too important to skip over so this message will be taking a look at it, but before we talk about Cain I want to reflect on a few of the things God’s first judgment, and the one we’re about to look at, teach us about God.

Paul points out that we can discern the existence of God through the things he has made.[i]  I have referred to this natural revelation as, “The Silent Sermon,” because on the basis of the 19^th Psalm, “Day to day pours out speech, and night after night pours out knowledge.”[ii]

The Psalmist is telling us that everywhere in the world, really, everywhere in the universe, every moment in time the glory of God is being declared to every rational being through the things that God has made.  Paul adds that the silent sermon reveals the existence of God to everyone.  As a result, every man and woman who has ever lived is responsible for their response to at least one sermon that they cannot not have heard, the silent sermon.  But though the silent sermon does reveal certain things about God, there are other things that we learn about God through the record of his special dealings with the human race.

We learn a great deal about God from the judgment of Adam and Eve.  We see that He is not a God to leave the guilty unpunished, but in the midst of their judgment we can also see his love for the sinful couple through his mercy.   The postponement of physical death for many years is mercy.  The covering of their nakedness with the skins of animals is mercy and also the first indication that sin can only be covered through the shedding of the blood of the innocent; an animal that was not involved in any way in the transgression of Adam and Eve had to die to provide them with the skins that covered their shame.

 The earth was cursed and broken, but not completely.  Man would have to work hard, but the earth would still produce food for him.  One of the great mercies shown to the fallen couple was the posting of cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life, so that they or their descendents would not eat the fruit of the tree and live forever in their sins.  But the greatest mercy of all was the gift of hope, the hope that one day the woman’s seed would crush the serpent’s head.  This is the first prophecy in the Bible of the coming Messiah and his suffering.  The serpent’s head would be crushed, someday, but the heel of the one who crushed it would be bruised.  I have often wondered if those who removed the body of Jesus from the cross remembered these words when they looked at the bruised heals of the Messiah as they prepared His body for burial.

So in Genesis three we begin to learn that that there is a moral order in the universe; and the creator, whose character is reflected in this moral order, is the one who judges and punishes those who violate the moral order.   Being the creator gives Him this right. The potter has right over the clay.[iii]  But we also learn that His judge is tempered with mercy, and from this we infer that He must have love and compassion for us.  Why else would he promise to send the woman’s son to crush the serpent’s head?  And at such cost!  Why else would He offer His amazing grace to save a wretch like me?

 Now we move on.  The sin that was first seen in the couple in the garden has now manifested itself in their first born son.  His brother is lying in the field, his blood soaking into the ground.  Cain thought that no one saw when He rose up against his brother in the field, but God was watching, and his brother’s blood is crying out to God for justice.

From the genealogies we learn that the first murder happened almost 130 years after creation.[iv]  This means that the human race may well have numbered in the thousands when Cain killed Abel.  If this is indeed the case it may be that Cain was a clan or tribal leader.  This helps us to make sense of the text that tells us Cain built a city and named it after his first born son, Enoch.  It seems likely that after his judgment when he settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden, he took others with him.  

Now as you read the previous paragraph you may be asking yourself that old question, “Where did Cain get his wife?”  Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam had other sons and daughters in addition to Cain, Abel and Seth.   Cain and these other sons must have taken wives from among their sisters, nieces, cousin, etc.  Some object to this obvious answer by pointing to the Law’s condemnation of incestuous relationships.  To answer this objection I refer the reader to the first message in this series where I discussed the principle of progressive revelation.  But to summarize it briefly; God did not reveal his moral will to the human race all at once.  Rather, he revealed it gradually over time.  And, as Paul explains in Romans 5:13,” sin is not imputed when there is no law.”  But don’t let this idea that early man married their sisters, nieces and cousins bother you.  Even if you are an evolutionist you have to believe the same thing. 

After all, the evolution of a single couple capable of reproducing through random mutation and natural selection would, given the odds against it, be a remarkable thing.   But assuming it happened.  Where did that first couple’s sons get their wives?   I think we reach the same conclusion whether we believe in mitochondrial Eve or the Eve of the Bible.

But let’s get back to the subject of the judgment of God.  I don’t want to get hung up in the details of the sacrifices that were offered or God’s attempt to encourage Cain to do the right thing, or the murder itself.   I want to focus on just two things: (1) God’s statement that, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to Me from the ground”; and (2) Cain’s response to God’s judgment.

The first observation I would like to make is that the blood of the innocent cries out to God for justice.  Thus we learn that the creator of the world is also its judge, the one responsible for seeing to it that the guilty do not go unpunished.    In Genesis four we learn that innocent blood cries out to God for vengeance.  But as we continue reading through the Genesis we will learn that other sins do the same.[v]   An understanding of this principle is indispensible to an understanding of the God of the Old Testament and the defense I am making of Him. 

My defense of the God of the Old Testament rests on this principle; that when the moral order of the universe is violated, whether by Cain or by you or me, a cry for justice rises to the God of the universe.  God is loving and merciful; because of this His judgment is often postponed.  Paul speaks of this and warns us not to misunderstand the patience of God. [vi]  Peter speaks of the same thing.[vii]   But though the wheels of divine justice often grind slow, they grind sure, and as it was revealed to Moses, the goodness of God requires that He not leave the guilty unpunished.[viii]

Notice now Cain’s response to the judgment he received.  I would suggest he received an incredibly light sentence, considering the nature of the crime. He was banished from the land he loved, he was denied access to the presence of God, and sent into the world as a vagabond.   But notice the wickedness of the Cain’s heart.  Instead of responding to the mercy he received with gratitude, Cain responded by complaining that his punishment was “too great to bear.”  His only concern seems to be that someone would hunt him down and do the same thing to him that he had done to his brother.

In Cain’s response I see a picture of the consistent reaction of the human race to the grace that God pours out upon us.  Isn’t it just like us to look at the way God treats this fallen world, which is actually quite gracious considering the nature of our sin, and complain that He is not being fair?    

Could it be that the guilty are not really the best judges of the fairness of their sentence or the conditions on death row?   I think of this whenever I hear Richard Dawkins or one of his parrots hurling accusations against the God of the Bible.  I wonder what makes them imagine that they are morally qualified to judge their judge; and I shudder at the foolishness of a person who would rail against the one who may just end up passing sentence on them. 

“Ah, but I don’t believe in God,” they may protest.   And they may be right.  Perhaps God does not exist.  But just in case they are wrong, does it not make some level of sense to cool the rhetoric?

Finally, I note that as far as we know Cain never responded to the mercy of God.  As far as we know, he never repented.  This too is a picture of the history of our fallen race. Again and again, God has extended His mercy and grace to the worst of sinners, only to have it thrown back in His face. 

These days some are shaking their fists at God as they throw his mercy back in His face, and they call Him all sorts of terrible names.  Based on their reading of the Old Testament they think they have found justification for it.  But when I read the Old Testament I read a different narrative.  I read the story of the unrequited love of God.  I see Him calling out to fallen Adam, “Where are you?”  And I see him giving mercy, again and again and again; but I see the mercy rejected again and again and again too.  Finally, when justice can be postponed no longer I see God do what He refers to as His strange work,[ix] and judging those who in spite of all His efforts, refuse to repent.

The series of natural disasters that have occurred over the last few months have caused many to ask the old question, “If there is a God of love how could He allow such things to happen?” While the question is important, I want to point out that it is a relatively recent one. What I mean by this is that throughout most of human history people did not ask how could God have allowed something like this to happen when disaster struck.

In earlier times it was just assumed that God or the gods must be displeased with us, and that the erupting volcanoes, earthquakes, plagues or destructive storms were, as the Weather Channel refers to them, the wrath of God. And so men and women in earlier times responded to disasters such as this by trying to appease the gods (See my article, An Ancient Appeal to an unknown God).

I enjoy old moves. And the traditional way of viewing things is pictured in one of my favorites, the 1932 firm, The Bird of Paradise. The movie is a great love story set in the South Pacific. It is the story of about a man (Joel McCrea), who falls in love with the beautiful daughter (Dolores Del Rio) of the local chief when his the sailing ship he is on visits a tropical Island. The chief’s daughter is smitten too, and so he decides to stay behind with the love of his life. Unfortunately their love breaks a few tribal taboos. As a result, the volcano god becomes restless and the volcano that dominates the main island rumbles alive in response, threatening the destruction of the entire village. The only thing that will satisfy it is for the chief’s daughter to throw herself into the volcano. Naturally, she chooses to do her duty rather than follow her heart (remember, this is a pre-1960s movie), and so she bravely throws herself into the volcano to appease the anger of the volcano god. Amazingly, it works, and everyone lives happily ever after, except of course, for poor Joel McCrea, who leaves paradise with a broken heart and a bitter taste in his mouth.

This old move does a pretty good job of illustrating the way people in most times and places have viewed natural disasters. Even today this way of thinking is so ingrained in the collective consciousness of the human race that most people think this way. I believe it is universal, and probably innate, so I include it in what I have referred to in an earlier series of articles as a part of our “common sense.”

It is interesting to me that even in modern times this “primitive” way of viewing natural disasters is still prevalent. Because in spite of the fact that rationalism, materialism and naturalism dominate the West, most of the world’s peoples still live in traditional cultures and still draw cause and effect relationship between human behavior and the rampages of nature. So the average person living in Myanmar is much more likely to look for a supernatural explanation for the cyclone that wrecked their country than a natural one. While our access to the country is limited, I would almost guarantee that the man on the street in Myanmar links the cyclone in May with their government’s slaughter of Buddhist holy men in September. As far as they are concerned, it is all about Karma.

Let me share another example. I was in India in January 1999, when Australian missionary, Graham Staines, was burned to death while he was sleeping with his two young sons in a village in the North Eastern state of Orrisa by a mob of radical Hindus. In September of the same year a devastating cyclone struck Orissa killing thousands. A friend of mind overheard a group of Orrissian Indian college students discussing the cyclone. Cyclones are very unusual in that part of India, and the storm did indeed take an unusual track , it was almost as though it was designed to hit only Orrisa. So it was not unusual that these students would be discussing it. But what would surprise many in the west was the certainty with which these Hindu students concluded that the cyclone was retribution for the murder of Graham Staines and his sons.

These Indian students were well educated, and today they are probably competing successfully against the West’s best and brightest. They are not stupid. They just think differently than we have been taught to think in the rationalistic west. They think the way everyone used to think in pre-scientific age times. But let me let you in on a little secret, in spite of over two centuries of rationalism, even today, even in this country, people still think the same way.

As earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados rampage around the nation and the world, many are asking if God is trying to tell us something. I know this because so many people ask me this very question, and I am not just referring to church people. It seems that collective consciousness of the human race is hard to repress, even in a culture such as ours where ideas such as divine retribution are scoffed at and regarded as the superstitious relics of a less enlightened age.

But why do we scoff at such things? Are we in the West really wiser than the rest of world? What sort of Chronological Snobbery, what sort of Eurocentric arrogance, says that we are the world’s sole depository of wisdom and knowledge? But in spite of modernist arrogance, there is a variation of the traditional way of thinking that is perfectly acceptable, even in the United States, even among naturalists and skeptics.

As I write this message I am sitting on my front porch enjoying an absolutely beautiful afternoon. Just a few minutes ago one of my neighbors came over to talk for a few minutes so I decided to test my theory. I asked her if she ever looked at all of the hurricanes and tornados we have been having and wondered if God is trying to tell us something. She told me that she does not think this, nor does she blame God when these sorts of things happen. But she said she does blame them on the way we treat our planet. She mentioned global warming.

I thought her response was fascinating, and I have heard others, including Al Gore, say the same thing. In fact that was the explanation he offered for the cyclone that struck Myanmar. But when you think about it, this is really just a variation of the traditional response.

The West, having rejected God, is now worshiping nature. And when nature erupts we assume that we must have done something wrong. But we are too sophisticated to throw the chief’s daughter in the volcano (Jena Bush-Hagar, is safe), but we must might throw in the SUV, especially if gas prices keep rising.

It would appear that we have the same archetype in different costumes depending on the culture. So it seems that we all think pretty much the same way. The basic common sense, the collective unconsciousness, whatever you want to call it, is still there and it is hard to kill. Here in the West, due to naturalistic pressures, we have a scientific, politically correct way of viewing natural disasters the same way they are viewed by people living in a traditional culture. But even though the language we use is more compatible with our modernistic construct, we are really saying the same thing; the gods are mad and it is all our fault. Perhaps it is. Something deep inside of us seems to say it is.

Here in the West, we reject the thought that our collective sins have angered God, and that he might be judging us for them, and we also pour scorn on those who dare to suggest such things. But is it not ironic that we seem to have no problem with those who claim that nature’s fury is nothing more than just retribution for the collective ecological sins of the race? Why do we give Nobel Prizes to those who say such things while scorning those who say we are courting the wrath of the God who created nature through humankind’s collective violation of His moral will?

Perhaps the answer to this question reveals more about us and our animus toward our creator than we want to admit.

Let’s change gears now and go back to the question we began with, “”If there is a God of love how could He allow such things to happen?” Those of us who believe in the old God do have a response to this question and it is related to what I have been discussing. The unspoken implication in the question is that we deserve a better world, or if not a better world a better God. But do we really? The common sense, the collective unconsciousness would seem to be telling us something different, and so does the Bible.

The traditional Christian teaching is very well stated in The Book of Common Prayer: “O Lord, who for ours sins are justly displeased.” Our culture has rejected the notion that God has any just reason to be displeased with us. Instead we have declared ourselves ” basically good.” And having acquitted ourselves of all charges, we now have brought an indictment against God for the way he treats good people like us. But is this modern consensus correct? Are we really as good as we claim to be? Does history support our claims to goodness?

The Bible does not deny the greatness or nobility of the human race. After all, we are created in the image of God and thus we have innate value and nobility, but along with all of our nobility the Bible insists that we also are innately depraved. Thus we are at the same time the greatest and worst of creatures.

If we were to only focus on the many noble and wonderful things we do we might well conclude that we are basically good. But how easy is it to ignore the fact that the same person who does some great act of kindness in the morning may turn and commit the most awful act of cruelty in the afternoon? And how many times has that same person been you?

I am convinced that one of the reasons Biblical Christianity is so hated in our time is that it tells us the truth about our condition, and we would prefer to believe a lie. James said that the word of God is like a mirror. Unfortunately when the mirror tells us we are not the fairest of them all we reject it and walk away. More than this, we hate it for what it says about us, and we hate the God who says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

What does this have to do with the God of the Old Testament? Frankly, everything. Because the Bible rejects the assumption hidden in our complaints, that we deserve a better world than the one we have (see article: The Problem of Pain - Part II ), and it rejects the assumption that the judgments of God, as we have them recorded in the Old Testament, are unjust.

God’s defense to the first charge is that we have a better world than we deserves and that we are treated with grace and mercy we could never earn. His answer to the second charge is very simple; the civilizations that were destroyed in the Old Testament were richly deserving of the judgment that befell them, because in the great scheme of things, their collective sins against God’s holiness were far more serious than any ecological sin that the human race has ever committed.

John Calvin began The Institutes of the Christian Religion with this observation:

“Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists of almost entirely two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” [i]

Some years after I first read this statement, while traveling in India, I had an opportunity to read the first part of the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi.  While reading it I was struck by the fact that Gandhi’s search for truth consisted in his search for these very things, knowledge of himself and God.   He writes that he gained great insight through self-examination.  But of God, he writes, “I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him.”

My more cynical readers might say, “Of course he could not find Him, He does not exist.”  Gandhi would not be impressed by such cynicism.  In his search for truth he briefly visited what he referred to as “the dry Sahara of atheism,” and rejected it.   And though he confessed that his search for God had not yet led him to Him, he does not say that he found nothing; “Often in my progress I have had faint glimpses of the Absolute Truth, God, and daily the conviction is growing upon me that He alone is real and all else is unreal.”  Nevertheless, He wrote these sad words at the end of the introduction to his book:  

“Where is there a wretch
So wicked and loathsome as I?
I have forsaken my Maker,
So faithless have I been.

“For it is an unbroken torture to me that I am still so far from Him, who, as I fully know, governs every breath of my life, and whose offspring I am. I know that it is the evil passions within that keep me so far from Him, and yet I cannot get away from them.”[ii]

As I read Gandhi’s book, and as I reflected particularly on its introduction — which I find unusually profound - I was struck at how close Calvin and Gandhi came in their conclusions about human nature.  By any human standard, Gandhi was one of the best our race has to offer, and yet he refers to himself as a wretch, wicked, and loathsome.  He speaks derisively of himself as one who has forsaken his maker.  He speaks of himself as faithless.  He speaks of evil passions within him that keeps God far from him, and speaks despairingly of his inability to get away from them.   But perhaps the most striking sentence in his entire biography is his confession that it is unbroken torture that he is still so far away from God.

At this point Gandhi and Calvin part company even though Calvin might have written much of Gandhi’s self description about himself.  Calvin would have testified that though all of these terrible things and more are true of him, God found him and He bestowed a grace upon him that was greater than his sin.

So how did these two men who agree with each other so completely on the moral state of their hearts reach such different conclusions?  Why did one find rest for His soul in God while the other, by his own admission, lived a life of “an unbroken torture” because he was so far from him?

As I considered this I came up with this answer: Gandhi sought, and urges us, to begin the search for truth by looking within.  In contrast, Calvin directs us to begin the search by looking outside and up:

“[The knowledge of God and ourselves] are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other…But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.”[iii]

I agree with Calvin that the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom.  This is why I began my defense of the God of the Old Testament with a discussion of God.  

Unbelievers may be mystified that we believers can defend the God of the Old Testament.  But my answer to them is really very simple; if you just knew who He is you would be well on the way to understanding or at least being able to accept the things the scriptures say about Him.  But in order to gain a complete understanding and acceptance you need one more thing; you need to know who we are - the human race - in relation to Him.

So with this message we begin that same journey of self discovery that Calvin and the young Gandhi embarked on.  It is time to look at ourselves, within ourselves, to discover what kind of creatures we are.  It is time to ask, who are we, really?  

In my opinion, one of the reasons modern men and women have so much problem with the God in the Old Testament is that they beg this question and assume an answer to it that does not stand up very well once we begin to seriously examine ourselves.  For example, in one of my on-line arguments with a disciple of Richard Dawkins, I was told that God is a sadist.  In support of this he pointed to the great flood and said that my God had killed millions of innocent people. This is a serious charge.  What could more reprehensible than the killing of millions of innocents?  But were they innocent?  The Bible says they were not.  But more importantly, are we innocent, or are Calvin and Gandhi’s analysis of the state of the human heart a more accurate assessment? 

The Bible does record terrible slaughters and it attributes them to God or human beings acting as His agents.  Clearly, if the people were innocent victims then God cannot be.  But there is another possibility.  God’s defense, the one given throughout the Old Testament, is that these civilizations were not innocent, nor are God’s actions with relation to the civilizations the actions of a sadistic God.  Rather, they are the long delayed judgment of a righteous and holy God.  

So if we are going to set ourselves up as the judges of God we need to understand His defense.   His defense is actually a good offense, the best defenses always are.  His defense is not just that He is not guilty, but that we are.  Indeed, if God has done us an injustice it is not having destroyed the entire human race.  
 
God looks at us and says the same thing about us that Gandhi said of himself:

“Where are there wretches
So wicked and loathsome as these?
They have forsaken their Maker,
They have been faithless.
They are far from Him
Who governs every breath of their life.
It is their evil passions that keep them far from Him,
And yet they cannot get away from them.”

Truly, the real question in considering the actions of the God of the Old Testament is  this; does the sovereign God who created them in the first place not have the right to judge creatures such as these?  Are not these the real issues on the docket: (1) Does God have a right to judge the wicked?  (2) Are we innocent or guilty of the charges of wickedness that God brings against us? 

This ends the opening statement in my defense of the God of the Old Testament.  In my next message I will be addressing one of the main charges brought against Him; that he is unjust in putting us in such a bad world.