Is God's law Immoral?

Justin is an atheist who hosts a podcast where Christians can call in and debate. You quickly realize that his intention and the purpose of his podcast are to confuse the Christian with gotcha questions and make them look foolish. In every one I have watched, he has been successful. We addressed one of his issues in the last post, and I want to look at another one. It is from the same podcast with the same caller as our last discourse.

It is concerning the Scripture [Deu 22:28-29 ESV] – 28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Justin claims this text explicitly allows the rape of an unmarried woman. He concludes the law is unjust and morally objectionable, which makes God unjust and morally objectionable.

There’s not much we can do with the way Justin views Scripture, but we do need to put forward a Christian understanding of this text. Justin’s problems arise again from his setting a narrative outside of the Scriptural context in which the text exists. There are a number of things he leaves his listeners assuming.

1. A law such as Deu 22:-28-29 is God’s command to all people in that time.
2. Because it states that this law is to be observed forever, it means all people, for all time.
3. Deu 22:28-29 contains God's full purpose and desire for women.

There are other assumptions he leaves open to the listener, but these are the most deceptive.

To quickly address those assumptions,

1. First we need to understand that this law was given not to all people, but to covenant Israel. It was not given to the world, but to the theocracy of the nation of Israel. They were to live in a closed community under a specific covenant as God’s chosen people, and they therefore had certain civil laws to obey in that community.
2. The mandate to obey forever was a command to this theocracy for as long as it existed. That theocracy no longer exists, and therefore there is nowhere for this law to be obeyed.
3. This law addressed certain provisions that would be necessary in this culturally closed community that a woman would encounter when she was abused by sexual assault. It was not a law to bring judgment, but to offer provision and compensation for both the woman and her family. It was not intended to answer every wrong that would be incurred by such a sinful act, but to offer some relief from the sin and injustice of which people would sometimes find themselves in.

It is true that during this time women did not enjoy social autonomy as some societies do today. But even in our current time, there are many societies that greatly restrict the social autonomy of women, but that does not mean it is God's design. The existence of all these covenantal laws that seem strange to us from the Old Testament is God’s response to the sinful nature of man and His governance over it.

Justin focuses on what the law does not provide rather than what it does. This particular law was not intended to right every wrong that was incurred. It would not be possible to enact such a law; it would always fall short somewhere. With a broad overall 10,000-foot view of mankind, you see from Scripture that man is fallen; he is corrupt in every part of his being. And if there could have been a law enacted that would have addressed every part of that corruption, life would have been given through the law.

So regardless of what Justin or anyone else may point out as lacking in this or any other law, it would not be impossible for it to provide perfect life and stability to man and his society. Though God may not have addressed it in this particular law, He would address it in Christ. [Gal 3:21-25 KJV] – 21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

This particular law obviously did not address or establish the woman's autonomous will and left her subject to her cultural injustices as we understand them today. But it would be finally addressed in Christ as a reward for her faith. I see no injustice in God for bringing about his perfect will and justice as it is revealed in time and space. Every law of God, though perfect in itself, does not address every human need perfectly; that is accomplished in Christ.

Though I understand Justin's argument, I don't think he has established that God is immoral. He perhaps has established that this particular law, in this particular period of history, in the life of this particular woman, in this particular situation, did not meet every demand of justice owed to her. I suppose the same could be said of any of the laws addressing any number of injustices in that time or any other time. As mentioned before, we can’t do anything about the way Justin chooses to view scripture; he rejects the Gospel and the grace that has been offered to sinful man, and chooses to look to law as the answer to man's problems. But laws only fence in his corrupt nature; the Gospel answers it.

Hope this was helpful,

David

 

Is God Evil?

In this post, I want to discuss a topic: Justin (an Atheist) on his podcast confronted a Christian caller. The discourse consisted of Justin explaining to the Christian why God is Evil. The exchange between Justin and the caller was unpleasant to witness, so I will avoid the disrespect they showed each other and address only one topic from the discussion.

It was concerning the text [Lev 26:23-30 ESV] – 23 "And if by this discipline you are not turned to me but walk contrary to me, 24 then I also will walk contrary to you, and I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins. 25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute vengeance for the covenant. And if you gather within your cities, I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. 26 When I break your supply of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven and shall dole out your bread again by weight, and you shall eat and not be satisfied. 27 "But if despite this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, 28 then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you.

This is one of those difficult passages that you come across in the Scriptures. Justin’s view is that God is immoral for bringing such judgment upon the people, while the caller’s view is that God didn’t actually do it, but allowed these things to transpire. Justin responds by asking the caller to read the text: What does it say?

I think if we treat the text fairly, we would have to say Justin has a point; it does say that God is the one who says He is going to bring a sword, and that sword results in famine so severe that the people eat their children. God does permit certain things in His providence, as the caller suggests, but it is difficult to apply that here because of the text's wording.

Their conversation drifts into a back-and-forth argument about whether God actually brought the judgment or permitted it. However, the question Justin first posed is never answered, and that is, if God brought such judgment and suffering upon this people, does that make God evil? Can God justly bring about circumstances in which human beings commit terrible acts without becoming morally culpable for those acts? Justin says no and insists this makes God an immoral being, a God who committed injustice upon the people. Also, why should the judgment include circumstances in which innocent children suffer the consequences of their parents' rebellion, including being consumed by their own parents?

There is no pleasant and easy answer to these questions. Justin is an atheist, so we can understand why he arrives at his conclusion. He does not believe an eternal, perfect being exists, nor does he believe that man is morally responsible for anything but his own evolved morality. However, Justin’s hypothetical argument does not work for him, for neither he nor anyone else can comprehend what a morally just judgment would be upon a fallible, natural, finite being that offended an eternal spiritual being of absolute perfection. Our natural minds have no access to the spiritual world, a world Justin doesn’t even believe exists. If he doesn’t believe it exists or have access to what such a world would be, how can he make a hypothetical judgment concerning its morality?

He takes these horrible events recorded in the Scriptures and places them outside their biblical context. He then assesses their morality based upon his narrative. However, if things were as the Scripture describes them, would the moral judgment change? If we examine the event in light of God's holiness as the Scripture presents Him. Then consider man actually as depraved as the Scripture presents him, what effect would that have on our understanding? In Justin’s narrative, God is not Holy, and man is not depraved, but that is not the context in which these horrible events occurred.

We concede Justin is correct in his reading of the text; God is the cause of these events. From Justin’s narrative, God makes people do horrible things. In Justin’s world, God is not holy, and these people are not depraved; they would never have done this evil if God had not placed these evil desires in their hearts.

However, this is not the context in which these events occurred. We know from Scripture that God never places evil desires in the human heart. In His providence, He may justly use and direct those depraved human desires to accomplish His purposes or bring His Judgments, but he never adds to human depravity. [Jas 1:13-14 ESV] – 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Also see Mark 7:20-23, Romans 1:24-25, and Romans 7:7-8.

Justin leaves out the fact that these people were already capable of killing their own children; the eating was just the next step. [Jer 7:31 ESV] – 31 And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. See also Ezekiel 20:31 and 2 Kings 17:17. These were not nice people this judgment was brought upon. This horrible event is not a testimony of God’s injustice, but of man’s depravity in the face of God’s previous mercys.

Justin looks at passages such as these and justifies his unbelief. That is his prerogative, but it doesn’t have to be yours. Scripture presents a being theologically referred to as a “pure being”. Referring to God as a "pure being" means that God is considered the highest form of existence, embodying perfection without any imperfection or potentiality. This concept emphasizes that God is fundamentally different from all other beings, who are seen as lacking in some way compared to God's complete and unchanging nature. God embodies complete perfection, and unlike created beings, God does not undergo change or development. He is fully actualized and does not possess potentiality. God exists beyond the limitations of the physical world and human understanding, making Him fundamentally different from all other beings. He is not just a being among others; He is the source of all existence and authority. Understanding God as pure being emphasizes the distinction between the Creator and the created, reinforcing the idea that God is not merely an enhanced version of humanity or the universe. Does anyone have the comprehension to understand the consequences of the creature rebelling against such a being? I would suggest to Justin that any hypothetical judgment upon such a being is a useless analogy.

However,  Scripture tells us the answer to these things. For a finite creature to rebel against such a “pure being” is a moral failure of eternal consequences. The fact that this being allowed the creature to continue to exist after his rebellion is a great mercy. The fact that this “pure being” even offered a covenant to any of these people is another great mercy. Their continued rebellion and morally reprehensible actions after being offered such mercy justify the judgments described in the passages we have been discussing. Then the ultimate immeasurable mercy to these people is found in our redemption in Christ. That is the true incomprehensible act of mercy to a morally corrupt and depraved being as man. You have two views presented before you: the Scriptural view, or Justin's view. Which will you trust your life to?

God bless,

David