The Narrow Path Ministries

A correspondent sent me the following question by email, this afternoon. I am sharing it and my response below:

Hello Mr. Gregg,

My name is S—. I've got a few questions for you concerning some "contradictions" from the Old and New Testaments. I recently engaged in a conversation with some atheists over the web concerning the origins of life. The conversation got sidetracked and they brought up an argument for which I do not have an answer that is sufficient for them. They argued that a loving God who made the commandment "thou shalt not kill" was a hypocrite and an evil God. There are instances where God commands the death of whole cities, including women and children. I have started listening to your verse by verse, but have not come across anything for that as I have only gotten through the first few chapters of Matthew. If you have an episode that you know of off hand from your radio show to explain or if you could answer directly on this email, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you so much for your time.

S—

------------------------------

Hi S—,

God is not a hypocrite, nor is He inconsistent. There are things that some are authorized to do, which others are not.

For example, a policeman may stand in the middle of an intersection and direct traffic. I am not authorized to do what he does.

The Congress can declare war against another country. I am not allowed to do this.

I am allowed to sleep with my wife. No one else is permitted to do so.

I can demolish the shed in my back yard without asking anyone's permission. My neighbor can't come into my yard and do the same.

I can drive the family car on city streets. My 12-year-old grandson cannot.

We recognize authority in human society all the time, without calling it inconsistent or hypocritical. God created life, and He has the right to take life, and the authority to have others do so, as He deems it necessary. At the same time, He has the right to forbid us to do the same—or to authorize others to do so, in select circumstances, as He sees fit. To acknowledge that God has these prerogatives is nothing more than acknowledging that He is God. The atheist does not believe in God, so he sees no distinction in the rights of God and those of men who are made by Him.

I would ask the atheist:

"Since you do not believe there is a God who created all things, let me ask you a hypothetical question: If such a God really did exist, would you think He would have the right to do whatever He wants to the things He has made, while not giving permission to others to do so?"

(Pause for reply)

If yes: "Then the only difference between us is that I believe and you do not, that such a God exists—and what I believe about His prerorgatives (by your own admission) is not inconsistent with that belief. It now remains for you to provide evidence that He does not exist, and not, merely, that you do not want for Him to exist";

If no: "Then we do not yet even have a shared definition of the God whose existence we are debating. By definition, the God in whom I believe has the rights I have described. Starting with that definition, please demonstrate that He does not exist."

Blessings!

Steve

(P.S. I know that Paidion would have given a very different answer, but I will not reopen that debate).

The problem with your examples seems to be that each of them (with the exception of the one about sleeping with your wife) do not involve moral principles, but legalities—laws of the country or states or municipalities or families.

But the matter of not killing people is a moral imperative. That's why God commanded it. That's why Jesus said to do good to your enemies rather than seeking revenge (which revenge might involve killing them). So to give the command not to do a moral evil, in this case not to kill, and then to do it yourself would indeed be inconsistent, although not necessarily hypocrisy (play acting).

It is true that you wouldn't be acting immorally by sleeping with your wife. But if someone else does it, it is adultery. It is not immoral for your neighbour to commit adultery but okay for you to do so. If you should sleep with the wife of another, you would be acting just as immorally.

So no, God does ask us not to carry out the immoral act of killing someone, while doing so Himself. His actions are not inconsistent with His commands. Jesus indicated that by carrying out His commands his disciples would be behaving not opposite to their heavenly father, but rather their behavior would be just like that of their heavenly father.

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35)

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this, because our arguments on this never get anywhere. This is for one reason only: I depend on what the scripture says, while you reject any Old Testament passage that goes against your opinions. I might just respond to this:

But the matter of not killing people is a moral imperative. That's why God commanded it. That's why Jesus said to do good to your enemies rather than seeking revenge (which revenge might involve killing them).

In fact, both the Old Testament and the New Testament disagree with you last statement. God said we should not avenge ourselves—not because it is immoral to do so, but simply because it is God's prerogative, and not ours, to avenge wrongs: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay" (Deut.32:35). Moses said it first, and Paul repeated it favorably (Rom.12:19). Your position, therefore, professes to know more about the character of God than did not only Moses (whom you think to have been mistaken about all such matters), but also than did Paul. See other places where Paul (and the writer of Hebrews) believed that God "strikes" and "judges" sinners (Acts 23:3; Rom.2:5-9; Heb.10:28-31; 13:4).

The question of civil laws versus moral laws, in this case, is irrelevant, since I was simply pointing out that we all recognize different domains of authority, allowing one person to do what another cannot legitimately do. While you are obviously correct that it would be immoral for me to treat another man's wife as if she were my own, you miss the point. My wife is my own wife, while my neighbor's wife is his. The question is: Is the right of judgment God's own, or not? He says it is—in both Testaments.

I wrote:But the matter of not killing people is a moral imperative. That's why God commanded it. That's why Jesus said to do good to your enemies rather than seeking revenge (which revenge might involve killing them).

Steve, you wrote:In fact, both the Old Testament and the New Testament disagree with you last statement. God said we should not avenge ourselves—not because it is immoral to do so, but simply because it is God's prerogative, and not ours, to avenge wrongs: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay" (Deut.32:35). Moses said it first, and Paul repeated it favorably (Rom.12:19).

I don't think the writers of the New Testament indicated God to be vengeful. In my opinion, "Vengeance is mine" is a mistranslation of the Greek word "ἐκδικησις" (ekdikāsis). (This is the same word as that used in the Septuagint translation of Deut 32:35, by the way)

Please consider the following passage which Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his second letter after the Corinthians took Paul's advice and ostracised the man who had been copulating with his father's wife. This treatment by the Corinthian Christians resulted in the man's repentance and Paul then advised them to forgive him. But the actions of the Corinthians also did good to the whole church as Paul indicated below:

Paul wrote:For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Cor 7:8-11 NKJV)

Guess what word, the NKJV correctly translated as "vindication"? None other than "ἐκδικησις" Or do you suppose it might better be translated as "vengeance"? "What vengeance you Corinthians wreaked upon that filthy sinner! I'm proud of you!" No. That wasn't the heart of Paul, and it wasn't the heart of the Corinthians. They didn't take vengeance on the man at all. They disciplined him through ostracisation (and probably excommunication), but they did it out of love so that the man might be healed of his sinful inclinations. And so it was. The man repented and was delivered from his sin. The man was vindicated (the obsolete meaning of which is "to liberate, set free deliver"). But he was set free at a great cost to himself. He had to undergo severe discipline.

I suggest the word "ἐκδικησις" ought to be translated as "justice". Indeed, the NKJV does translate the verbal form of the word as "give justice" in Luke 18:3.

And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’

In Christ's parable, the widow did not want vengeance against her adversary; she wanted justice for herself. If the NKJV were consistent it would have translated the word as "give justice" also in verse 7. Here is the way the ESV translates the verse:

And shall God not give justice to His own elect who cry out day and night to Him? Will He delay long over them?

This is not about vengeance at all. It is about justice (that is—fairness).

Justice is mine says the Lord; I will repay.

The Lord will make sure that everone is given the treatment they need. If reward is needed, God will repay them with reward; if correction is needed, God will repay them with correction (and in some cases only severe correction will do the job. But even that severe correction is mercy, and God will administer only as much of it as is needed. He does NOTHING out of mere vengeance as human beings so often do.

You wrote:Your position, therefore, professes to know more about the character of God than did not only Moses (whom you think to have been mistaken about all such matters), but also than did Paul.

I have rejected such a statement in the past, and I still reject it. I can say only that you are mistaken in your judgment of my position.

You wrote:See other places where Paul (and the writer of Hebrews) believed that God "strikes" and "judges" sinners (Acts 23:3; Rom.2:5-9; Heb.10:28-31; 13:4).

Okay. Let's examine them one by one:

Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3)

The high priest struck Paul in the mouth. This was his immediate response. He was angry. He called the high priest "you whitewashed wall". Yes, he told the priest that God was going to strike him, though that may not have been his actual belief. But even if it were his actual belief, God striking a person is not tantamount to killing him or wreaking vengeance upon him. When God strikes someone it is only for the purpose of remediation.

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek. (Rom 2:3-9 ESV)

I do not see this passage as indicating vengeance. Yes, God is angry about sin. His wrath will result in tough love. But the whole passage is about rewarding the righteous and disciplining the unrighteous. The Jews are not exempt because the are of the Jewish religion. They will be treated the same as the Gentiles. It's not about vengeance.

Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "Justice is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb 10:28-31)

I took the liberty of using the word "justice" in this passage rather than "vengeance" as I believe it to have been mistranslated. The strongest aspect in favour of the revenge argument is that the Greek word "timoria" was used by the author which seems to refer to punishing someone out of vengeance. This is the only place in the NT in which this word is used in it's nominal form. But the verbal form of the word is used of Paul, prior to his conversion, with respect to his punishment of Christians. However, another word which looks similar (epitimia) and is translated as "punishment"was used of the discipline which the Corinthian church employed with the man who had copulated with his father's wife.

Notice that the author of Hebrews also quotes "The LORD will judge His people." Surely God's judgment of His own people will be that of correction and not vengeance. And as I see it, that will also be the case with everyone else. God will not let anyone get away with wrongdoing. For He loves everyone with a lasting love; He wants everyone to be free from wrongdoing, and to work only righteousness. Again He will give them the correction they need, and in many cases this will be a severe and fearful correction. It is best to repent and become free from wrongdoing now.

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4)

Of course God will judge such. Have I ever denied God's judgments? God judging people and correcting them is much different from God wreaking vengeance on people as fallen human beings are prone to do.

I do not see this passage as indicating vengeance. Yes, God is angry about sin. His wrath will result in tough love. But the whole passage is about rewarding the righteous and disciplining the unrighteous. The Jews are not exempt because the are of the Jewish religion. They will be treated the same as the Gentiles. It's not about vengeance.












What do you think about the worldwide flood that God caused Paidion? Was it justice or vengeance?

Hi Steve 7150,

I believe that there was a world-wide flood (and not merely a local one). There are flood stories handed down in several different cultures, and they are substantially in agreement.

What I question is the idea that God caused the flood. That was the understanding of the ancient Israelites who believed God caused both good and hurtful events.
It seems they also thought of Satan as God's agent in causing hurt to mankind. On the other hand, Jesus the Son of God, depicted God as being kind to ungrateful and evil people. (Luke 6:35). He asked his discples to love their enemies and do good to them, and the would prove to truly be sons of God, since they would be like God who is kind to evil people rather than vengeful and/or ready to kill them. It seems the apostle Paul picked up on this, and taught that a servant of the Lord must also be kind, and endure evil rather than get revenge on an evil person:

Paul wrote:...the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil.(2 Tim 2:24)

From Biblehub:
Strong's Concordance
ekdikésis: vengeance, vindication
Original Word: ἐκδίκησις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekdikésis
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-dik'-ay-sis)
Short Definition: a defense, vengeance, full punishment
Definition: (a) a defense, avenging, vindication, vengeance, (b) full (complete) punishment.

According to Strong that the word ekdikesis has different meanings, example: vengeance and vindication.

What I question is the idea that God caused the flood. That was the understanding of the ancient Israelites who believed God caused both good and hurtful events.










Paidion i have a couple of questions for you. The flood was a truly unique event with water covering the earth and the highest mountains, and rain for 40 days and nights. What do you think caused it if not God? Also didn't God pledge to not repeat this?
If God didn't cause these seeming calamities and atrocities why didn't He intervene and stop them? Wouldn't it have been good to stop them and didn't James say that if one knows to do good and doesn't then this person has sinned? Does this apply here?

Steve 7150 wrote:Paidion i have a couple of questions for you. The flood was a truly unique event with water covering the earth and the highest mountains, and rain for 40 days and nights.

It truly was unique!

What do you think caused it if not God?

Well, Genesis speaks of "waters above the firmament" and "waters below the firmament". I can only speculate as to why the waters above would have fallen.
And I don't like speculating. I only suspect it may have been a natural disaster.

Also didn't God pledge to not repeat this?

How do you know God made that pledge? Because Moses wrote that He did? The flood was many years prior to Moses. Where did he get his information? Was it a tradition handed down, that God had sent the flood?

If God didn't cause these seeming calamities and atrocities why didn't He intervene and stop them? Wouldn't it have been good to stop them?

You have asked the question of the ages. Why doesn't God stop calamities and atrocities today? It seems to us human beings that it would be good to stop them. But He doesn't. Some say that He doesn't stop them because He has a "deeper purpose", but I don't buy that. I think He doesn't prevent man's atrocities to his fellow man because He doesn't want to interfere with man's free will. He wants' all people to relate to Him out of their own free will without being forced. As for natural calamities, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, etc which destroy many people, this is a more difficult question to answer. But I think it may be that His intervention in the forces of nature would make world conditions unpredictable. Natural laws would sometime operate, and sometimes would not.

Some say that He doesn't stop them because He has a "deeper purpose", but I don't buy that. I think He doesn't prevent man's atrocities to his fellow man because He doesn't want to interfere with man's free will. He wants' all people to relate to Him out of their own free will without being forced.

Isn't this statement self-contradicting? If you say that God could prevent a thing but He chooses not to do so because He wishes to honor human free will, have you not identified a "higher purpose" in God's mind that leads Him not to intervene when He otherwise might? You know that God can intervene to save people from disasters (unless you wish to add the miraculous deliverances and healings in scripture to the list of things in the Bible that you reject), and you know that He does not always intervene, as He could. That He could intervene in a given case, but doesn't, means one of two things:

1) He is purposeless in His decisions when to intervene and when not to; or

2) He is purposeful, and intervenes when it will suit His purpose, but not otherwise.

Your statement above acknowledges that He is purposeful—namely, He purposes to honor human free wll, but you will not allow that He might have any other purpose than this—like His desire, through Joseph's afflictions, to save the world from starvation, or through Christ's sufferings, to save the world from sin. I do not know why you are so intent on limiting God's range of possible purposes for His action, but the one you limit it to does not explain the irregularities. After all, He sometimes did intervene to thwart the free will of evil men—as when men took up stones to stone Christ, but were not successful, because "His hour was not yet." Yet, He later did not intervene, as when Christ, "being delivered By the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God [was] taken by lawless hands...crucified, and put to death" (Acts 2:24).

On some occasions, God intervened to prevent Christ's death. On this occasion, He did not intervene. The biblical writers, whose testimony you often dismiss as unreliable, consistently said that, in the latter case, this was in fulfillment of a divine purpose. You might deny this, in order to maintain your consistency. If you do not deny this, then you will acknowledge that God decided when to, and when not to, interfere in the plans of free human agents in deference to a "higher purpose." Is it your opinion, then, that Jesus is the only one among God's children who can have the assurance that the cup of suffering handed to him was delivered to Him by His Father (John 18:11)?

That God decides matters of His intervention on a case-by-case basis, and since He is purposeful in His decisions, it seems that there must be additional purposes that govern His actions, besides a commitment not to override free will in man. Since God sometimes does, and sometimes does not, override man's free will, there must be some additional "higher purpose," in each case, deciding when He will do this. What is gained for your system by denying this obvious fact?