I've often told the story of the Bible verse that freed me from the wrong kind of apologetics. That is, the idea that if I explained the more difficult parts of the Bible in just the right way, or depicted them in just the right light, a skeptic or non-believer would accept those things in the Christian doctrine that are, even for many Christians, hard to accept. The verse was Genesis 38:7 - "But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him."
A simple and unassuming verse. Unassuming except for the part where God kills a guy. But there it was, in plain black and white, with no footnote added, no theological context to remind the reader of God's sovereignty and right to give and take life, no information on the degree or manner of Er's wickedness to try and make God seem more justified in taking his life. It was simple: "The Lord killed him."
Somehow, this verse reminded me that God does not need a dullard like me to defend Him, explain Him, or try to make Him look right - He's God and He is above such requirements. He is above the need for human approval or justification; this is why Jesus tells the Pharisees who were indignant at the praise the people were giving to Him, "I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40). I don't mean "defense" in the same sense as Peter does when he instructs us to give a defense for our faith - a reason we believe, a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). I mean this in the sense that for years I thought my articulation and logic would lead people to Christ; and what I was essentially thinking was, the only way to God was through Christ, but the only way to Christ was through me and my awesome apologetics and speeches.
I think that as Christians we sometimes feel a need to explain certain parts of the Bible in a way to make them seem less abrasive, less uncomfortable. The doctrine of eternal damnation for non-believers is one of the hardest, saddest truths we face as believers in God's holy Word. No Christian should desire for anyone to go to hell, and that should therefore be one of the reasons we must strive to show love and share the good news of Christ before the Judgment: "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). What kind of hatred could a believer have to not share the Gospel that leads to eternal life? Why would we want anyone to spend eternity without God's love and presence? That's what hell is, after all. The permanent absence of God is worse than the fire.
So, many times we find ourselves using this shopworn expression to try and explain God's actions as if they were wrong, or at least suspect. We say:
"God doesn't send people to hell - people choose to go to hell when they deny Him."
In essence, this is basically true. People choose to deny Christ, and in doing so mark themselves for eternity without Him. But when we say this, we gloss over the sovereignty of God. We try and sugarcoat the fact that, being an omnipotent and perfect Creator, He is the only Being with the right to save or to damn, to kill or to give life.
This morning I happened to be reading about the destruction of Jericho in the book of Joshua. A verse even more troubling that God's sudden destruction of Judah's wicked son made me groan and think, "Lord, You're not making this easy on me." The verse was: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword." This verse is not unique in the Old Testament, as many times in ancient Israel's various wars, this was standard protocol.
Yeah, I know.
But I don't need to apologize for God (and I'm not talking about the practice of apologetics). My God is sovereign and perfect, with the right to direct life and death for His Creations. I could go into detail about how, under the New Covenant of Jesus, God's wrath has been satisfied through His sacrifice on the cross. I could make winding and longwinded explanations about the Mosaic Law and how it's been fulfilled through Jesus, so there's no more need for stoning adulterers and adulteresses to death. I could use semantics and theological terms to explain why, if God's wrath was satisfied through Christ, there is still a hell and not everyone will go to heaven. But if I did so with the thought that it would lead a person to accept Him, I would only be fooling myself and, worse, trying to paint a picture of a God that I like, rather than accepting His sovereign judgments, no matter how difficult they may be to accept sometimes (many times).
Hell is a real place. I don't want anyone to go there, but I know they will. I would have thrown up had I seen the bloody destruction of Jericho. But if I want to accept God as He is - and He is perfect - I must accept that He has the divine right to ordain such gutwrenching things. And I must remember that He played by the rules you and I face, suffering on the cross the wrath shown to Jericho so that a New Covenant could be made, a peace could be made, that you and I would have the chance to know Him. And knowing Him, we know more than an angry God, but a God with such depth, mercy, kindness, and love, all of it wrapped in an unbreakable holiness: mercy, kindness, and love we often think is absent when we read of the things He did in ancient times - and will do at another foreordained time.
And, after all, who would want to lower themselves to only worship a god they can understand?
A simple and unassuming verse. Unassuming except for the part where God kills a guy. But there it was, in plain black and white, with no footnote added, no theological context to remind the reader of God's sovereignty and right to give and take life, no information on the degree or manner of Er's wickedness to try and make God seem more justified in taking his life. It was simple: "The Lord killed him."
Somehow, this verse reminded me that God does not need a dullard like me to defend Him, explain Him, or try to make Him look right - He's God and He is above such requirements. He is above the need for human approval or justification; this is why Jesus tells the Pharisees who were indignant at the praise the people were giving to Him, "I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40). I don't mean "defense" in the same sense as Peter does when he instructs us to give a defense for our faith - a reason we believe, a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). I mean this in the sense that for years I thought my articulation and logic would lead people to Christ; and what I was essentially thinking was, the only way to God was through Christ, but the only way to Christ was through me and my awesome apologetics and speeches.
So, many times we find ourselves using this shopworn expression to try and explain God's actions as if they were wrong, or at least suspect. We say:
"God doesn't send people to hell - people choose to go to hell when they deny Him."
In essence, this is basically true. People choose to deny Christ, and in doing so mark themselves for eternity without Him. But when we say this, we gloss over the sovereignty of God. We try and sugarcoat the fact that, being an omnipotent and perfect Creator, He is the only Being with the right to save or to damn, to kill or to give life.
This morning I happened to be reading about the destruction of Jericho in the book of Joshua. A verse even more troubling that God's sudden destruction of Judah's wicked son made me groan and think, "Lord, You're not making this easy on me." The verse was: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword." This verse is not unique in the Old Testament, as many times in ancient Israel's various wars, this was standard protocol.
Yeah, I know.
But I don't need to apologize for God (and I'm not talking about the practice of apologetics). My God is sovereign and perfect, with the right to direct life and death for His Creations. I could go into detail about how, under the New Covenant of Jesus, God's wrath has been satisfied through His sacrifice on the cross. I could make winding and longwinded explanations about the Mosaic Law and how it's been fulfilled through Jesus, so there's no more need for stoning adulterers and adulteresses to death. I could use semantics and theological terms to explain why, if God's wrath was satisfied through Christ, there is still a hell and not everyone will go to heaven. But if I did so with the thought that it would lead a person to accept Him, I would only be fooling myself and, worse, trying to paint a picture of a God that I like, rather than accepting His sovereign judgments, no matter how difficult they may be to accept sometimes (many times).
Hell is a real place. I don't want anyone to go there, but I know they will. I would have thrown up had I seen the bloody destruction of Jericho. But if I want to accept God as He is - and He is perfect - I must accept that He has the divine right to ordain such gutwrenching things. And I must remember that He played by the rules you and I face, suffering on the cross the wrath shown to Jericho so that a New Covenant could be made, a peace could be made, that you and I would have the chance to know Him. And knowing Him, we know more than an angry God, but a God with such depth, mercy, kindness, and love, all of it wrapped in an unbreakable holiness: mercy, kindness, and love we often think is absent when we read of the things He did in ancient times - and will do at another foreordained time.
And, after all, who would want to lower themselves to only worship a god they can understand?
