If Jealousy Is A Sin, How Do We Understand God’s Jealousy?

 

            The Bible asserts that jealousy is a sin and at the same time it reveals that God is a jealous God. This, at first, seems to be contradictory, but how do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

            Dr. Norman Geisler and Professor Thomas Howe offer a clear and a concise solution:¹

EXODUS 20:5A—DOES GOD GET JEALOUS?

PROBLEM: The Bible not only says here that God is a “jealous God,” but it also declares His very “name is Jealous” (Ex. 34:14). On the other hand, jealousy is a sin. But, if God is absolutely holy, then how can He be jealous?

SOLUTION: God is jealous in the good sense of the word, namely, He is jealous for the love and devotion of His people (cf. Ex. 20:5). Paul spoke of a “godly jealousy” (2 Cor. 11:2). The verses on God’s jealousy are all in the context of idolatry. Like any true lover, God is jealous when anyone or anything else steals the devotion of His beloved.

Human jealousy is often coveting what does not belong to us. However, God’s jealousy is protecting what does belong to Him, namely His own supremacy. It is not a sin for God to claim allegiance of His creatures because He is the Creator. And He knows that it is best for them not to make an ultimate commitment to what is less than ultimate (idols). Only an ultimate commitment to what is really Ultimate will ultimately satisfy the human heart. God is jealous to protect this.

            Christian Q&A website Gotquestions.org offers a practical example to help understand this dilemma better: “If a husband sees another man flirting with his wife, he is right to be jealous, for only he has the right to flirt with his wife. This type of jealousy is not sinful. Rather, it is entirely appropriate. Being jealous for something that God declares to belong to you is good and appropriate. Jealousy is a sin when it is a desire for something that does not belong to you. Worship, praise, honor, and adoration belong to God alone, for only He is truly worthy of it. Therefore, God is rightly jealous when worship, praise, honor, or adoration is given to idols. This is precisely the jealousy the apostle Paul described in 2 Corinthians 11:2, “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy...””²

            This subject has been studied more extensively in an article entitled The Jealousy of God on The Gospel Coalition’s website.  Please read this article if you desire further clarity on this subject.³

Endnotes:

¹https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Exodus_20.5a.php

²https://www.gotquestions.org/jealous-God.html

³https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-jealousy-of-god/

Websites last accessed on 25^th February 2022. 

Why Is God Referred To As The Father And Not The Mother?

            God is spirit (John 4:24). HE is neither male nor female. (Male and female are the attributes of the corporeal humans, not the incorporeal God.)

            However, when the Bible reveals God, HE is mostly revealed metaphorically in the masculine and not the feminine. Why?

            Professor Marc Zvi Brettler, the Bernice & Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and the Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University offers an explanation from the perspective of the Biblical language, Hebrew:¹

Unlike, e.g., German or Greek, Hebrew has no grammatical neuter gender, so all items must have a grammatical gender of masculine or feminine.  Thus, every item must be assigned either a masculine or feminine grammatical gender—and the particular assignment often seems arbitrary to us.  Thus, for reasons we can no longer understand, a table, שֻׁלְחָן (shulkhan) is masculine, while a bow, קֶשֶׁת (qeshet) is feminine.

Within this framework, YHWH in the Bible is masculine.  Most scholars believe that this is irrelevant, claiming, e.g.:

The grammatical forms for God are masculine and the representations of God are mostly masculine. Although God does use a comparison to a woman in childbirth (Isa 42:14), nonetheless there is a strong scholarly consensus that God is regarded as nonsexual. “If sex must be applied to Israel’s deity, it would be monosex, and this is either an incompleteness or a contradiction in terms.”^[12]

In other words, most scholars suggest that the fact that God is grammatically masculine has no more bearing on the actual gender of God than the fact that table is masculine meant that ancient Israelites viewed tables as masculine and bows as feminine.

Recent linguistic studies, however, show that this is incorrect; grammatical gender does spill over to understandings of real gender.  The same object—let’s say a table, may be marked as masculine and feminine in different languages.  And depending on the language you speak, you will then view tables as either more masculine or feminine!^[13]

Thus, it is far from trivial that when YHWH was referred to in the Bible, YHWH always governs a masculine verb and is described by a masculine adjective.  This grammatical fact derives from a view of YHWH as masculine, and would have reinforced that view.^[14]

            William Lane Craig explains that the metaphor of God as the Heavenly Father portrays both the parental love and the authority of the father in a Jewish household, “Since God is neither male nor female, why does He reveal Himself as Father and Son? In the Old Testament there are passages in which God presents Himself as a mother tenderly caring for her children. But Jesus thought of God as his Heavenly Father and revealed Him as such. In using the metaphor of God the Father, Jesus expresses two attributes of God which would not be so aptly captured by the metaphor of God as a Mother. The metaphor of God as a Heavenly Father captures both the parental love that God has for us and the authority that a father, as the head of the Jewish family, exercises. No other image could express so beautifully this combination of qualities in God.”²

            God is not androgynous (being both male and female). It is incorrect to think of HIM as such. Here’s Professor Marc Zvi Brettler’s explanation:³ 

Genesis 1:27 reads:

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ     God created person in His image;

בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ                  in the image of God did He create him/it

זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃                   male and female did he create them^.[18]

For many readers, this verse suggests that God is male and/or female since people, who are male and female, are created in God’s image.^[19] This interpretation is possible, but far from certain.^[20] Genesis 1:27 is an unusual poetic verse in the Bible.  The basic structure of biblical poetry is the two-part verse (bicolon) where the halves parallel each other.^[21]  Well over 95% of Hebrew poetic verses have this structure—and in it, the two verse-parts are tightly connected (or parallel).^[22]  Gen 1:27, on the other hand, is an infrequent biblical tricolon, and in tricola all three verse parts need not be tightly connected.  Thus, some tricola may be read as a bicolon plus an additional thought.  If this is so here, then the verse may be read as:

            God created person in His image = in the image of God did He create him/it;

            and, in addition, male and female did he create them.

This verse would then have no bearing on God’s gender or sex. Given what we know of the structure of biblical poetry, such a reading is certainly possible, and therefore this verse may not be used to prove that God is both male and female.^[23]  Thus, the constant reference to God using masculine grammatical forms, and the depiction of God as king in the chapter, suggest that this deity was viewed as male and masculine.

            It is also important to learn that God being genderless does not prevent HIM or conflict with HIM inhabiting a male body during incarnation. Here’s William Lane Craig’s answer to such a question:⁴

Hi, Dr. Craig…Most theologians believe God is genderless, but if that is true doesn't that mean a genderless spirit was inhabiting a male body in the incarnation? That seems potentially problematic from an ontological perspective as humans are, of course, male or female. What are your thoughts on the matter?

DR. CRAIG: I am inclined to think that because the Genesis narrative says that God made man in his image – male and female he created them – that men and women alike are created in God's image and that, therefore, God includes in himself the properties that go to make up masculinity and femininity. Therefore, it is not that Jesus would be genderless. He would be a man – he would have a male body – and included in the divinity are the properties that go to make up masculinity that would be represented in him.

            Finally, we should accept God’s revelation in the masculine without trying to dilute this fact:⁵

While God contains all the qualities of both male and female genders, He has chosen to present Himself with an emphasis on masculine qualities of fatherhood, protection, direction, strength, etc. Metaphors used to describe Him in the Bible include: King, Father, Judge, Husband, Master, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

One famous Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis, has suggested that gender is far deeper than our human distinctions reveal. He suggests that God is so masculine that we all are feminine in relation to Him. If this is true, it might explain why the church is referred to as the bride of Christ, though it is composed of both men and women.

There are those who would like to blur this emphasis in some of the newer Bible translations, but it is very dangerous to tamper with the way God has chosen to reveal Himself. He most certainly does not intend to minimize women, since men and women are revealed as being made in His image and are of equal value to Him. But it remains that He is Father, not Mother, and even in the Incarnation chose to come to us as a man, Jesus Christ.

Endnotes:

¹https://thetorah.com/the-gender-of-god/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/why-god-the-father-and-god-the-son

³https://thetorah.com/the-gender-of-god/

⁴https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/questions-on-god-and-gender-eternal-life-and-the-resurrection/

⁵https://billygraham.org/answer/why-does-the-bible-refer-to-god-in-masculine-terms/

Websites last accessed on 28^th November 2018.

Dangers and Consequences of Christian Universalism (Part 1)

Some Christians vociferously state that all people (irrespective of spirituality and/or morality) are heaven-bound. A few of the many reasons as propositions for their beliefs are:

(1) Christ’s atoning death is for the salvation of all mankind.

(2) The historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible is incorrect (E.g. ‘Hell’ lacks context). There is no literal (physical) hell.

 (3) One cannot comprehend truth (resorting to uncertainty). God can do anything.

(4) God will annihilate the unbelievers after their death (Annihilationism).

Christian Universalists need not believe in all the reasons presented above. They could believe in one or a few.

Necessity of Christ but Unnecessity of Belief in Christ:

Some Christians state that Christ and HIS finished work on the cross is necessary but belief in Christ is NOT necessary for salvation. This could be considered a scandal on God’s nature for at least a couple of reasons:

(A) Why should God sacrifice HIMSELF on the cross when people will be saved irrespective of their belief in God (Jesus Christ)? God could have merely uttered one salvific word to achieve universal salvation. Thus all people would be saved without the miraculous and gory drama of Christ’s saga.

(B) Is God so callous that HE sent HIS Son to ruthlessly die on the cross for something that’s virtually insignificant?

One could present more such thoughts. Positing Universalism should not scandalize God’s nature. God’s attributes cannot oppose each other - a perfect being cannot be good and evil at the same time.

If Christ is necessary for salvation, then belief in Christ is absolutely necessary. The statement, “Christ is necessary but belief in Christ is unnecessary,” is not a plausible statement. Please observe the following sequence of thoughts as an analogy:

(1)   Food is necessary for existence.

(2) Although food is necessary, belief in food is also necessary for a person to eat the food.

(3) If there is food and if the person believes in the food, he will eat.

(4) If there is food, but the person refuses to believe in it, he will not eat.

(5) Therefore, a person ought to have the food, and also believe in it to eat.

Factors that motivate unbelief in food could be the lack of: desire, taste, hygiene, contamination (poison) etc. If I do not believe in the food presented to me, I will not eat it, for it may not be tasty or it could be poisoned.

Although Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice is factual, one should place his faith in Christ so to have Christ live in him (cf. Galatians 2: 20; Colossians 1: 23, 27). If Christ is necessary, then belief in Christ is also necessary to appropriate Christ’s finished work of salvation into our lives.  

Necessity of faith in Christ can be presented through the coalescence of God’s attributes. Because God is holy, HE cannot tolerate sin, but punishes it with hell. This agrees with HIS attribute of holiness and justice. But God is also loving, merciful and compassionate, so HE gave HIS Son, our Lord Jesus, to die for mankind’s sins. Therefore, man should believe in Christ for Christ to live in him. A man, who does not believe in Christ, rejects Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice. An unbelieving man implies that Christ’s atoning sacrifice isn’t necessary for his salvation (cf. Luke 24: 26).

So we can reasonably conclude that belief in Christ is a virtual necessity for salvation, for unless Christ lives in a man through man’s belief in HIM, he cannot be saved.

Interpretive Conundrums:

When Christian Universalists affirm the relevance of the Bible, yet reject the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible, they create numerous conundrums in the Bible. Many biblical doctrines will be questioned for their validity and significance, of which some are:

Sin: Certain flavors of Christian Universalism dilute the doctrine of sin to a mere flaw. They do not categorize sin as an assault on God. The wages of sin being death is also appropriately diluted. Sins are characterized as mere character flaws i.e. hatred, filthy language, sickness, lust, pride. Flawed hermeneutics of the Bible contribute to this problem. If this were to be true, man does not have any overarching reason to detest sin. This then would promote rampant immorality.

Faith in Christ: How would the various verses proclaiming faith in Christ, as a means to salvation, interpreted by the Christian Universalist (E.g. John 3: 16 et al.)?

Some Christian Universalists interpret that ‘faith’ will be imputed (ascribed). But imputation of faith negates man’s freewill. If God imputes faith, can it also be argued that God imputes sin into man? In other words, when man sins, does he sin because God imputes sin into him? A God who imputes sin into man, is not a good God, and so ceases to be God. If there is no God, salvation is meaningless and so is universal salvation.

If belief in Christ is imputed upon man, then Christ’s death and resurrection was unnecessary. God could have simply imputed belief in people without the incarnate Christ in the picture.

Fruit of Spirit: If God wills all be saved, there is no need for the believer to produce fruit of the Spirit. So a believer who does not produce the fruit of the Spirit will be saved. This implies that a believer need not remain in Christ (John 15). Consequently, a believer can remain outside of Christ (disbelieve in Christ or remain disobedient to Christ) and still be saved. So not only is the fruit of the Spirit rendered meaningless, but also faith and abiding in Christ.

God’s Sovereignty: Christian Universalists proclaim that God is sovereign, so HE will save all.

This implies that God can do anything. If God can do anything, would the Christian Universalist subscribe to the notion that God can create another God or God can commit adultery or God can lie? If not, how would he negate these abnormal possibilities of God’s sovereignty that contradict HIS attributes?

Repentance: Man need not repent, but God will gift repentance to man. This is preached by some Christian Universalists. Imputation of repentance eliminates freewill of man. If man is not free, he is God’s puppet. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret the verses that teach freewill of the believer (Joshua 24: 15; Proverbs 16: 9; John 7: 17; Revelation 3: 20 et al.)? Additionally there are verses that term the believer as a child of God, friend of God, and disciple of God. These verses imply man to be anything but a puppet of God, so how would the Christian Universalist interpret these verses?

Negation of Hell: Some posit the reality of heaven and negate the reality of hell. They negate the reality of hell citing a lack of context. A cursory glance at a couple of passages describing everlasting punishment (hell), reveals judgment as context (Matthew 25: 46, context is in verses 31-33, and 2 Thessalonians 1: 9, context is in verse 5). Since everlasting punishment is stated within a context, hell is a reality.

Holiness: Christian Universalists also claim overtly or covertly that a believer need not be holy, for he will be saved even if he is not holy. If a believer need not be holy, he can be immoral, so is the Bible advocating immorality in a believer? Negating holiness in a believer also negates the holiness of God, within the context of Christlikeness. Is Christian Universalism positing a God who is not holy? A God who is not holy is not God.

Loving and Worshiping God: A believer need not worship or love God for he will be saved even if he remains obstinate in not loving and worshipping God. The Christian Universalist then needs to explain the many verses in the Bible that demand love and worship of the living God.

Obedience to God: God’s commands need not be obeyed, since the believer would be saved nevertheless. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret all the verses that mandate obedience to God’s commands?

Given the factors presented above, affirmation of the Bible is virtually immaterial when essential doctrines of the Bible are diluted and the attributes of God negated.

Translation of the Bible: Some Christian Universalists assert the corruption of the biblical translation. If the Christian Universalist claims that the translation of the Bible is corrupt, then he should discard the entire Bible. If some parts of the Bible are corrupt, wouldn’t it entail that the entire Bible may be corrupt? If the transmission of Bible is deficient in certain parts, doesn’t this also imply that God is intentionally misleading HIS people by not being sovereign over the transmission of HIS Word? 

I will stop at this juncture to maintain a self imposed 1500 (approx) word limitation of a single blog post. I will conclude my thoughts on Universalism in my next blog, where I will touch upon other relevant themes. Amen. 

The god Who Admits All People to Heaven is…

The tenets of Historic Christianity are stated, the nature of truth examined, and adequate reasons to reason out our faith in Christ have been offered in my previous blog. Let us now examine the god who welcomes anyone and everyone into heaven. For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have termed the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’ I have posited few threads of argument from within morality (distinction between right and wrong or good and evil) to question the existence of unigod. But let me begin with worship, which is man’s response to God’s worthiness.

God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.

From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.

In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then this god (unigod) has placed himself in a quicksand situation. If one can negate the unworthiness of unigod by confuting universal salvation or expose unigod’s attributes to be unworthy of God, then by entailment, unigod need not be existent and hence worshipped.

The following arguments present the unworthiness of unigod so to eliminate him from the figment of any imagination.

Argument from Attributes of God:

Man, to love and worship God, should be aware of HIS attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice can be posited as great communicable attributes. Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’

A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty. Please observe this situation, “I don’t want to be with god, but he forces me to be with him, and I have to spend the entire eternity with him” – this certainly is a depressingly bitter hope. Holding people against their will is slavery; none accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is dictatorship in its glory. But this is precisely what unigod does to people. Love in unigod is actually cruelty.

Minimally, justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal. Since evil is rampant in the world, a common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.

At our workplace, we are extremely saddened and frustrated when we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.

Since God cannot be evil and unjust, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.

Argument from Abuse:

If you are unaware of Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.¹ Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he doesn’t repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.

Please brace yourself for an unmitigated indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.² Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists will claim that unigod will still save me.

A god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.

Argument from Consistent Discipleship:

The Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. By the same token, would the Universalists accept abuse? They technically should accept, for if their god allows this upon himself, the Universalists, as the disciples of unigod, should unconditionally allow this upon themselves. Failure of the Universalists to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends will intuitively expose their opposition to their own god.

Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).

The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. For example, if a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.

But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, and the child is to resemble the parent, but the resemblance of the children of the unigod is much unlike the unigod. So we can reasonably posit that since unigod exists only in the imagination of the Universalists, they are unable to imitate their god.

Argument from Existence of God:

The ironclad moral argument for the existence of God states:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the analytic philosopher of religion, defines objective moral values as, “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.”

We can extend the moral argument for God to:

4. The unigod saves all people, even the horrendously evil.

5. So there are no objective moral values in unigod.

6. Because objective moral values and duties exist, unigod does not exist.

In conclusion, Universalism is purely mystical and the alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the minds of the universalists. I simply cannot comprehend a god who saves all people. Please enlighten me if you disagree with me.

I will continue on this subject but from the perspective of Christian Universalism (Christians subscribing to Universalism) in my next blog. Amen.

Endnote & References:

¹ Dawkins’ view of God in his book ‘God Delusion:’ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

² This indecent attack on unigod is perfectly reasonable, since unigod is existent only in the dreams and imagination of universalists.