Part Five: Morality, Evil, and the Bible
1. “There are no such things as absolute, objective, and universal morals”
2. “It’s not fair for us to be held responsible for Adam’s sin.”
3. “How can anyone believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God when so much evil and suffering exists in the world?”
4. “God’s response to evil is too slow and capricious.”
5. “If God is love, then why is there an eternal hell? Wouldn’t it be more loving if God simply ‘annihilated’ people?”
6. “Your God is immoral and/or too vengeful. We should not trust and obey a God that sends a flood to judge the whole earth, rains burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, and commands his people to take the lives of all the Canaanites.”
7. “Slavery is unjust and yet the God of Christianity permits the nation of Israel and Christians to have slaves.”
1. “There are no such things as absolute, objective, and universal morals”
-
In contrast to this view, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity argued for a universal moral law.
-
There must be a universal moral law, or else
1. Moral disagreements would make no sense (they demand standards)
2. All moral criticism would be meaningless (is something better or worse?)
3. It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties (we assume that it is)
4. We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law (we all do)
1. Stronger impulse would always win but it does not
2. We sometimes act selflessly rather than from instinct (when we help)
3. Instincts would then always be right (but sometimes they are wrong)
1. Same moral laws can be found in all societies (a coward is not virtuous)
2. Can’t make judgments about social progress if society were the basis of judgment
1. Self-refuting (can’t prove it’s right if it too is relative)
2. Absolute statement (nothing can be “everything” if it’s relative)
(top)
2. “It’s not fair for us to be held responsible for Adam’s sin.”
-
Some believe that we do not inherit Adam’s sinful nature. If you are one of them, that’s fine, but are you less than perfect from a moral standpoint? If so, then may we not say that you will be judged for your own sins anyway?
-
Perhaps your objection is rooted in your/our culture of individualism? Some countries, for instance, in Asia and the Middle East, believe in “solidarity” where the group takes precedence over the individual.
-
Concerning this notion of “representation” and “solidarity” it occurs in other contexts as well. For example, in the United States, children born outside the United States may be granted US citizenship if their parents possess US citizenship.
-
While one could argue in theory that it’s not “fair” to inherit Adam’s sinful nature, I would counter that it’s not “fair” for one man (Jesus) to pay the penalty for our sins and die in our place as well. In short, your claim of “Adam’s sin” being unfair is countered by God’s grace and mercy at the cross (Rom 5.12-21). Thus, the question still remains, “Do you believe that you have sinned and need to put your trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins?”
(top)
3. “How can anyone believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God when so much evil and suffering exists in the world?”
-
This question implies that this person has more knowledge and wisdom than God in light of “running the universe.” How can a finite human being, however, understand the plans of an infinite and transcendent God?
-
Furthermore, this view suggests that because evil is not yet destroyed then God cannot or will not destroy it. Christians reject this assumption and may argue that because God is all-powerful and all-loving, then God can and will defeat evil in the future (at Christ’s second coming).
-
If God was to destroy evil today, then Jesus would be returning to judge humanity. God’s decision to not “wipe out” evil (yesterday, for instance) may also be interpreted as a sign of His grace because God is providing more opportunity for people to repent and be saved (2 Pet. 3.9).
-
Interestingly, for a person “outside of the Christian faith” to ask God to destroy evil is in essence to ask God to judge him or her for their sins. In short, to ask God to destroy evil (now) from a “non-believer” standpoint is to ask God to judge them now.
-
Although evil and suffering appears to be senseless there are a few reasons for God allowing “some” evil and suffering. Sometimes God allows “evil and suffering” as an act of judgment (e.g., the Flood, Babylon used to punish Israel). Furthermore, the existence of evil also testifies to the brevity of life—we need to repent for we never know how long we have to live. Finally, some (e.g., Joseph, Naomi, Job, Apostle Paul) bring God more glory in light of how they deal with their suffering and pain.
(top)
4. “God’s response to evil is too slow and capricious.”
-
God created human beings with the capacity to sin or not to sin. The presence of evil in the world is due to the free will of humans and consequences of the fall. (Thus God is indirectly but not directly responsible for the origin of human evil.) Although this is not the best world (heaven) it is the best way (allowing humans the free will to choose, mature, develop character, persevere, etc.) to the best world.
-
But why does God “wait” and allow so much evil? Why does it take six million Jews, for instance, to die in order for God to “stop” evil? Isn’t one million deaths enough for God to respond to our cries? In humanity’s “darkest moments” wicked people cause suffering at an enormous level. God is “patiently waiting” for human beings to work with Him in order to destroy evil. In this case (Nazi Germany during World War II) it did, contrary to our understanding, take six million deaths in order to respond to the crisis. (In other words, we “complain” that God didn’t act fast enough and yet humanity in general, was “slow” to act as well to the evils perpetrated during WWII.)
-
God’s answer to sin was to send the Messiah. Thus, to understand the importance of God’s answer to evil we must know who the Messiah is, what the Messiah did, does, and will do. In brief, the Messiah is Jesus, he lived a perfect life, died on a cross, and offers salvation to humanity. Jesus is our advocate and Great High Priest interceding for his people. As King he spiritually reigns in the heavens and in our hearts, but will one day physically set foot on earth to destroy evil.
-
The Messiah’s death and resurrection paves the way for defeating evil in four ways. (1) The Messiah received a glorified body and so will we. Thus, there will be no cancer, no HIV, no blindness, no Alzheimer, and so forth for those with glorified bodies. (2) Those in Christ are no longer slaves to sin for its power has been broken. Eventually, we will be in heaven, in God’s presence, and thus not on earth where sin is proliferated throughout the world. (3) The Messiah has given Satan and his demons a fatal blow to the head; both will be judged and thrown into the lake of fire—never to tempt, lie, and “control/influence” people again. (4) Creation is groaning and natural disasters (hurricanes, tsunamis, fires) wreak havoc on humanity (Rom 8.18-25). However, with the Messiah’s resurrection he initiated a global transformation in the universal physical world; like humanity, the world is waiting for the Messiah to reveal himself again. In short, creation will be recreated, redeemed, and restored at Christ’s return and thus earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, hurricanes, will no longer cause human affliction.
-
God, our Father, can empathize with us because He knows how it feels to lose a “son.” He had to watch “helplessly” as his Son, the Messiah, was led to his painful and suffering death. Furthermore, the Father knows what it feels like to see an innocent victim suffer and die at the hands of evil perpetrators.
-
Finally, let’s no forget that human beings have also been given the responsibility and challenge to “stamp out” evil. (Taken in this sense, God works in, with, and through humanity to “wipe out” evil.) For example, we can use political means (e.g., ending slavery), make medical/technological advances (treating diseases, performing operations), and provide comfort (e.g., love, mercy, counseling) for those suffering.
(top)
5. “If God is love, then why is there an eternal hell? Wouldn’t it be more loving if God simply ‘annihilated’ people?”
-
While God is love, He is also holy (He has a perfect moral standard). One consequence of God’s holiness is that He cannot tolerate imperfection (the Bible calls this “sin”) and thus He must judge sin.
-
Let’s set up an analogous situation and assume (for argument’s sake) that there is a “guilty” person (we have undisputed evidence including eyewitnesses, DNA testing, technological recordings, etc.) who premeditated the torture and murder of five people. The jury and judge, however, allow the “guilty” person to be set free without any prison time, community service, or psychological rehabilitation (the person does not suffer from any psychological problems and has been pronounced “fit” for the trial) because the jury and judge felt compassion for the person because he never felt loved as a child. Do we think justice has been served?
-
It is true that a finite sin against a finite person (I steal from someone) deserves a finite punishment (temporal; “eye for an eye”). However, if a person’s sin is ultimately against God (and not another human being), then is it not possible to categorize this as an “eternal” and “infinite” sin against God’s majesty? If so, then it makes sense to argue that an eternal hell is predicated on the notion of an “eternal” and “infinite” sin against God.
-
No one is in hell that does not want to be there. They have chosen this path instead of the other path prescribed by in the Bible. God is impartial and will only send people to hell who not only want to be there (they have rejected God for their entire life; it’s now too late to choose the “heavenly” route after they have arrived in “hell) but they also deserve to be there because of the consequences of their sin and God’s holiness.
-
Perhaps you still think God is unfair for sending some to hell as a general principle, but let’s make it pragmatic and personal, right now. Rather than focusing on God’s judgment and hell we should also consider His mercy (God withholding the judgment we deserve) as well. At the cross both holiness and mercy come together as God pours out his wrath on His son who becomes our substitute for our sins.
(top)
6. “Your God is immoral and/or too vengeful. We should not trust and obey a God that sends a flood to judge the whole earth, rains burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, and commands his people to take the lives of all the Canaanites.”
-
We need to first begin with the idea of God’s holiness. Because God is holy He has an absolute and perfect standard for morality. When people fail to live up to this perfect and absolute standard the Bible calls it “sin.” Every sin deserves punishment. Also, God is majestic, that is, He is magnificent. God’s very being is absolutely and completely full of splendor, brilliance, and grandeur. Sin may be viewed as an “attack” upon God’s majesty. Hence, when God punishes sin, He is also “restoring” his majesty.
-
In the above examples, God gave the people a chance to repent and change their ways. The very fact that God did not judge the earth by flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Canaan immediately testifies to His mercy of withholding judgment. God is not immoral in these instances because they were guilty and their sins were an abomination to God (Gen 6.1-7; 18.16-33; the Canaanites were known in history for their wickedness).
-
God was very patient and long suffering towards the “evil” and “sin” in light of human wickedness during Noah’s time, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Canaanites. Because we can only catch a “glimpse” of God’s holiness (via our own experience of a tainted “moral goodness”) we cannot understand how “painful,” “distressing,” “anguishing,” etc. it is for God, who is holy, to “sit back” and observe sin without punishment.
-
Furthermore, God’s majesty was insulted by the sins committed during Noah’s time, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Canaanites. Because we cannot understand God’s majesty, we have no idea how offensive it is for creatures to consistently and continuously outrage God’s majesty. Thus, when God “judges” in these examples it appears to be a “whimsical” or “knee-jerk” response, but in actuality His decision to judge demonstrates His patience (it has been a “long time coming”), holiness, and majesty.
(top)
7. “Slavery is unjust and yet the God of Christianity permits the nation of Israel and Christians to have slaves.”
-
First and foremost, slavery as an institution (e.g., slave trade with Africa) should be condemned. Anytime a person is under the “ownership” of another, deprived of their personal freedom/liberties, and forced to perform services we should vehemently oppose such a practice. The Bible, however, does not support such a practice.
-
In the Old Testament, there were two kinds of slaves including a “prisoner of war” and an Israelite who “sold himself” to raise money. Concerning the latter, the underlining purpose was to help the poor not for “slave owners” to get rich and wealthy. Furthermore, it was a voluntary decision (not forced upon by another) that an Israelite entered into this agreement. In addition, a slave could own his own property (a traditional understanding of slavery gives all property to the owner). A slave could work for only a maximum of six years (but they could buy their freedom earlier), had one day off to rest (Ex 20.10), and could be set free if he was mistreated (e.g., hit with a rod leaving an injury; Ex 21.20-27; Lev 25.44-46). In short, this kind of slavery (“selling oneself”) is radically different than the “traditional” understanding of slavery.
-
Regarding the former, non-Israelites slaves (prisoners of war) were “permanent slaves” of the Israelites (if they were willing) with the same rules of rest, mistreatment, and potential release (if harmed) applied to them as well. Interestingly, Duet 25.47 teaches that these non-Israelites could gain wealth and even have an Israelite as a slave who sold himself to the “alien.” Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19 also declare that Israelites should treat these non-Israelites slaves as if they were Israelites themselves. Again, the practice of having non-Israelite slaves is not similar to the “traditional” understanding of slavery.
-
Duet 23.15 teaches that a runaway slave from another country should find freedom and sanctuary in the land of Israel and not returned to the land from which he fled. Again, no such “practice” existed in our traditional understanding of slavery.
-
For “slavery” in the New Testament we must discover what slavery was like under Roman rule. There are several observations worth mentioning (1) Any discussion about slavery is complex because of the variety of ways it was practiced. (2) Slaves lived in a variety of settings from dormitories to under the same roof as their owners to material environments (for highest class). (3) The law restricted the slave owner’s treatment of slaves. (4) Slaves had the right of legal recourse (to represent themselves in a court of law, bring charges against their owners for mistreatment, request asylum). (5) Slaves could own property, make legal transactions, manage their owner’s property, and own their own slaves. (6) It has been estimated that two to three million people were slaves (30% to 40% of the total population). Many of these slaves were infants, children, and elderly. (7) Given such a high percentage of “needy” slaves it would be unwise to simply “free all slaves” (social services would never be able to cope with such a social crisis) during this time. On the contrary, it would be wiser to “end” the “slavery” of the Roman rule through the gradual and progressive improvement of the slaves’ privileges, rights, property, wealth, and status.
-
In conclusion, the “practice” of slavery that existed in the Old and New Testament was radically different than our “traditional” understanding of slavery.
(top)
<-- back to list of questions
|
