"Flatland and Beyond"

In this post, I want to visit the idea of Flatland again so we can understand Sarge and his reasoning when he brings up his objections to the concept of a good God from the Bible. Remember in our last post we explained Flatland was a novel written in part as a way of explaining what is meant by transcendence in religion. It posits a group of people living in a two-dimensional world, and thus many of the phenomena that can only be understood from a three-dimensional perspective are mysterious to Flatlanders, as the Flatlanders cannot really understand three-dimensional thought. I'm not saying those like Sarge are not as smart as Christians, they just approach the Bible with a different perspective. Their reasoning is from Flatland only and therefore they achieve only a Flat understanding of "the God character" in the Bible. Whereas Christian reasoning is from beyond Flatland (that not being a locale, but simply a realm of thinking), and that gives them an entirely different understanding of the character of God. This doesn't really help Sarge and those like him for they do not believe there is a beyond, but it does explain the different perspectives. Let us take a look at another of Sarge's objections. Next after he presented the idea that God had murdered children because of the sins of their parents he surmises the following statement. 

 

"Most Christians don’t believe that but they give a pass to their God when he murders innocent children because of the sins of their parents. That is an unabashed emotionless way of thinking because of fear of going to hell if one does not accept the monstrous actions of a horrible God." - Sarge.

Christian theology does not give God a pass on this or ignore it, it simply understands it from a different perspective. The context Sarge is addressing here is the children that died in the Biblical Flood and in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He then drops in the statement concerning the emotionless way of thinking Christians engage in when they accept such actions by God simply in fear of going to hell if they do not. The Christian is certainly not emotionless concerning the judgment of God in any measure nor do they fear going to hell. What Sarge is referring to I think is the doctrine of Original Sin. However, that doctrine does not suggest children die because of the sins of their parents. It suggests we all die because of the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. It is possible he could also have in mind a few scriptures such as:  

Exodus 34:6-7 ESV

(6)  The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,

(7)  keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

However, those scriptures do not address original sin, hell, or the death of children. The context is relating to Israel as a nation and the Covenant of blessings and curses they were under in that dispensation, and does not apply in the context of this discussion. 

So what is the doctrine of original sin and this issue with the forbidden fruit? It could be asked why one today is judged a sinner because of Adam and his sin? Hey, I didn't eat the fruit! Well, all men were naturally and seminally in him; as he was the common parent of mankind, he had all human nature in him, and was also the covenant head, and representative of all his posterity; so that they were in him both naturally and federally, and so "sinned in him"; and fell with him by his first transgression into condemnation and death. 

In other words, what Adam was we are, both by legal and natural association. By the nature of his sin he is rebellious, so by birth, all human nature is rebellious through him. Though young children may not have yet sinned in Adam's likeness, the nature of rebellion resides in them. Legally, we are associated with Adam Federally. Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. For example, a country's president may be seen as the federal head of the nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world. If a nation goes to war, (Constitutionally here by Congress) every individual associated with that nation is considered to be at war. Paul explains it this way:

 Romans 5:12 ESV

(12)  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

If you want to prove this logic as a fallacy, then simply don't sin. For many this is unacceptable, they refuse to be associated with anything but their own autonomy. However, to the Christian, this is a wonderful and necessary thing. It is what makes our redemption possible, Paul explains:

Romans 5:17-19 ESV

(17)  For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

(18)  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

(19)  For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin being imputed to us makes it possible for Christ's righteousness also to be imputed to us. Though we didn't actually commit Adam's sin, it was accounted to and passed on to us, likewise, we didn't commit Christ's righteousness, yet it is accounted to and passed on to those who accept His righteousness as their own, this is called faith. 

Sarge continues his reasoning with a further objection, "You also claim non-believers will meet their fate but you ignore the fact that many in the world are not non-believers but simply believe in a different mythical God or deity. So, because an individual was born in the wrong nation and was raised to believe in their non-Christian cultural religion they will go to hell.

So a loving compassionate God shows no mercy for the cultural indoctrination of the young into a non-Christian religion. I think that is a huge problem." - Sarge   

That fact is certainly not ignored, it is logically deduced from Paul's statements above in Romans 5. It is not a belief in God or lack thereof that answers to the lack of man's unrighteousness. All other religions offer a path to heaven by some means by which a man can appease God by some work or righteousness of his own. But according to Biblical truth (which Sarge would say does not exist), man has no righteousness, therefore he must depend upon the righteousness of another. No other religion has Christ, therefore, what all other religions offer is nothing more than unbelief. They are not condemned because they were culturally indoctrinated from their youth into a different religion, they were condemned already as all men are by their very nature. On the contrary, God has shown great mercy to them as well as all men!  

Ephesians 2:3-5 ESV

(3)  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

(4)  But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,

(5)  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Salvation is not by the works of some religion or goodness we might want to present on our behalf, but by grace and grace alone. 

Yet another objection presented is, "You state it is a misconception to think those in hell would repent if given another chance. How do you know that? You don't.

You say they hated God and the concept of God and religion, but that has not changed and will not change. Again, how do you know that? You don't." - Sarge

Actually, I do, because repentance is a gift from God, without which, because of his nature he will never repent.  Acts 11:17-18 ESV

(17)  If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?”

(18)  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Again we return to the beginning of this conversation concerning the nature of man, if going to hell changes his nature, then there would be no one there. Paul continues his examination of this nature in Romans 8:7 ESV

(7)  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

A man's mind or nature is hostile toward God, being in hell does not change this. If one dies hostile toward God, he will always be hostile toward God. Torment does not change one's mind, it only hardens its resolve. Revelation 16:21 ESV

(21)  And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe. Does one really think hell will cause people there to love God, it will only cause them to curse Him all the more! 

In the midst of these objections, Sarge issues a challenge, "You say atheists don't believe in the reality of God (please prove God is real because that has yet to be done), so it must be the concept of a deity they deem so harmful." - Sarge

You are correct Sarge, for as of yet you are not convinced. When a case is presented before a jury, an argument both for and against the defendant is made. In the mind of this jury in Flatland, the existence of God is still out, for many refuse to believe. However, some are convinced and believe, just because the jury is locked, does not mean the case is settled. The actual case is not if God is real, it is whether men are good or bad. If he is proven to be good, then all is well, if he is bad, we still have a problem.  

Then we have one final objection, "You finally said something kinda right because atheists do believe it is harmful to believe in a deity when believers do things that are harmful to others like killing those who don't believe in their deity, i.e. the Christian Crusades. It isn’t the concept of deity that is harmful, it is the belief in a nonexistent God that can prove to be harmful to others.

How about when some Christians deny their child life-saving medical care because they believe their God will heal their child and then that child dies? That is a harmful belief in a nonexistent God." - Sarge

I would agree with you wholly in that respect Sarge. This again takes us back to the beginning of this conversation and the nature of man. Christianity has never harmed a single soul, it is the fountain of life and peace to any society. The Christian Crusades were not Christian, they are the results of fallen men in what has been called Christendom. They stand in history as a warning to us concerning the danger of Christian nationalism and cultural Christianity. The Apostle Paul never called the church to take up arms against Rome, to overthrow the government, or to create a Christian State. Quite to the contrary, he called for Christians to support and uphold the civil authority of the day, which was one of the most corrupt and unjust in history. 

1 Timothy 2:1-4 ESV

(1)  First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,

(2)  for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

(3)  This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,

(4)  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Church is never called to go into other nations and conquer by military conquest. It is commanded to go into all the nations of the world and proclaim the Gospel, it is our only great commission!

Matthew 28:19-20 ESV

(19)  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(20)  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Be very careful how you read those statements above, it is not to say the Church is to support and encourage corruption in governmental affairs. We are to exert as much influence upon civil society as we can through being good citizens and living and proclaiming the Gospel. Our prayers are for all those in authority (Christian or non-Christian) in their civil stations that they would be moved toward righteous ends and execute good judgment. The Church is not a political mechanism nor equipped to engage in civil government. It is a called-out assembly of people throughout the world dedicated to the Worship of the triune God Yahweh.

Briefly concerning the denying of life-saving medical care to a child, that certainly is not a Christian practice. It is a result of the foolishness of men's minds and a criminal act in its execution. There are many dangerous and harmful religions formed by the minds of men. Their existence demonstrates the great need for the proclamation of the true Gospel throughout the world. 

2 Corinthians 11:4 ESV

(4)  For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

2 Corinthians 11:12-13 ESV

(12)  And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.

(13)  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

  I only address that statement at all because it does occur. There are many religious groups that make claims to be inside the Christian faith and perhaps even hold to some Christian doctrines. However, what they do hold in similarity is poisoned by false teaching and crafty men that pray upon simple-minded people who are superstitious by nature and they do cause great harm. Sarge is correct and has every right to be concerned with these groups and any dangerous religion. His only error is failing to distinguish between the Gospel and these groups.

David         

"Living in Flatland"

In this post, we will continue to address Sarge's objections to my previous post "The Human Condition"

You can read his entire text in the comment section of the posts at the link above. At one point he stated, "The God character in the Bible is a racist because he clearly favors Jews over other people and sent his chosen people to destroy those who were not Jews." 

According to Merriam-Webster: racist noun: a person who is racist: someone who holds the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

In the scriptures we find God did indeed choose a people for himself.

 Deuteronomy 10:15 ESV 

(15)  Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.

But does choosing a people make one a racist? Let's examine why God chose a people for himself.

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV

(6)  “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

(7)  It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples,

(8)  but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

The people God chose for himself were not chosen on any trait or superiority that would constitute a racist act, in fact, they were the least of the people on the earth. They were poor and enslaved people, and they proved to be not only ignorant of God himself but rebellious toward Him. There was nothing superior in themselves as a people that moved Him toward them, He simply loved them. There is nothing racist by definition in God choosing a people for Himself. In fact, the choosing of Israel was the means to bless all the nations of the earth, it was sin that brought destruction to all, including Israel.

Genesis 22:17-18 ESV

(17)  I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,            

(18)  and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”

But Sarge takes it way beyond racist, for after speaking of God sending this chosen people to destroy others, he states, "The God character in the Bible has committed infanticide by killing infants in Sodom and Gomorrah for the sins of their parents. The God character in the Bible committed infanticide by killing all the infants in the world with his worldwide flood. Again, babies were killed for the sins of their parents. Richard Dawkins gave a long list of accurate descriptive adjectives describing the Christian God in his book "The God Delusion." He was correct and it is not an opinion to describe what one is called based on his actions. (referencing a comment I made, he continues) You also stated in your first paragraph whole families perished that day, children and all, it was a very grim scene. You then ask, But was it deserved? Are you kidding me? Are you saying children deserved to die for the sins of their parents?"

Is this the God in the Bible? Clearly, it is for Sarge and many like him, yet Christianity is founded upon the love and grace of God. Seems someone is looking at the wrong picture! Perhaps it's better said, not seeing the full picture. Many like Sarge look at the killing and suffering in the Bible and see only killing and suffering, and that at the hand of an unjust god character. This is annoying to them because Christians seem to overlook, pretend or ignore it altogether. Then they (the Christians) have the audacity to suggest that they (Sarge and those like him) should worship this wonderful God that they see nothing wonderful in. And so it has been from the beginning. 

We could liken it to the novel Flatland, it was written in part as a way of explaining what is meant by transcendence in religion. It posits a group of people living in a two-dimensional world, and thus many of the phenomena that can only be understood from a three-dimensional perspective are mysterious to Flatlanders, as the Flatlanders cannot really understand three-dimensional thought.  

In short, Flatlanders have no depth perception, they can only see each other as lines. Even the concept of two-dimensional shapes has to be deduced through a long chain of reasoning; only the well-educated can actually figure out another Flatlander's shape accurately.

Finally, when Mr. and Mrs. Flat meet Mr. Sphere, they slowly come to understand there is more to their world than Flatland, but because Flatlanders perceive only two dimensions, they cannot understand that there are dimensions beyond them.

The likeness is to say, we are flat in a flat creation and there is only one Sphere, that is the Creator. The flat knows nothing of what it means to be Sphere, understanding Sphere things is most difficult for the flat. What flat does understand he has to understand from only flat reasoning and flat language. This is the difficulty of understanding spiritual things with a natural mind. The spiritual has to be explained in natural language and likenesses. 

 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 ESV

(13)  And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

(14)  The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

To many, the Bible is but foolishness, Christian reasoning makes no sense to them. Consider, did God send the nation Israel to destroy other nations? Yes, that is recorded. Have nations of the world always gone in and destroyed other nations? Yes, that is recorded in our human history. Did children die when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and when he destroyed the world in the Flood? Yes, we can deduce that from the record. Have children died in catastrophes throughout human history? Yes, that is also recorded in human history. Are we to assume God only had something to do with those special events recorded in the Bible and nothing to do with the rest of human history? I think not!

From our flatland, we see our children as pure and innocent, and from the human perspective, they are. Hitler's parents undoubtedly saw their child as innocent, at that moment in time he was from our flat perspective, what he really was would later mature, and time would reveal the truth that rested in his bosom. Every child will eventually lie, cheat, steal, or hurt another child in time. It is simply what is in us. Some say we are judged for the sins of our first parents, the doctrine of original sin is difficult for flatlanders, but given time we do our own sinning, its just what is in us. God sees from outside time, He sees what is really in man, therefore His judgment is just. 

John 2:23-25 ESV

(23)  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.

(24)  But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people

(25)  and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

From the human perspective, it appeared many believed, but the reality was, they could not be trusted because of what was in them. It is these things we cannot see from our flatland, they are spiritual realities that are beyond our perception. The scriptures reveal to us certain truths in language that is answerable to us, and in limited ways reveal to us truths from God's perspective. 

We read the language in scripture that says, Genesis 2:16-17 ESV

(16)  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,

(17)  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

From flatland that seems ridiculous, to be sentenced to death for eating some fruit in a garden! From the use of our human language, we can deduce that death came not because the fruit was poison, but because the act was. A God that would demand such obedience, from Flatland appears to be a tyrant! What we cannot see from Flatland, is the reality of an eternal infinite Being in absolute perfection and what it actually means for a finite creature to step outside even in the slightest measure from what is absolutely owed to such a being. The command "You shall not eat" sounds ridiculous because it is designed to capture our attention. If it had been the theft of God's throne and the murder of an angel, one might come to the conclusion from Flatland that man certainly had done something wrong and deserved his punishment. The eating of the fruit presents us with a scenario in which even the slightest breach of obedience is an eternally weighty measure. Because we do not understand what God is in His Being, we do not comprehend what Adam did in his being and how it passes to us. Yet the language in the Bible conveys to us the horror of the curse that we see throughout human history. We in our short-sightedness miss the mercy extended to this world as the Creator uses the curse and the suffering to present us with a great redemptive story as we follow it throughout His progressive revelation in the scripture.

Some would lead us to believe that God is cruel commanding these two poor creatures through this unbearable hardship of obedience. However, let us realize, the Biblical account puts them in paradise with every need met and the experience of the greatest joy. The only thing required in return was don't eat the fruit of that tree! In all of that, rebellion lodged in their heart.

The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, are but two great catastrophes in a long list of suffering in human history. Sarge asks me if Children deserve to die for the sins of their parents? That is a rhetorical question, he knows I don't believe children should die for the sins of their parents. But that is natural reasoning, the reality is, everybody dies and children are no exception. The spiritual reality of this from a Biblical perspective is sin, it condemns us all, both young and old. Sarge and those like him do not believe in sin and its effect, therefore, they ask questions like the one above. The spiritual reality is, if there had not been sin in the world no one would have died in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or any other time in human history. Paul examines sin in Romans Chapter 7 and demonstrates that the act is only a result of what is in man from his conception. It is what is in man that has brought such a curse upon our history. Sarge asks what children deserve, what does anyone deserve, old or young, who by their very nature are rebellious toward every desire of God?

Romans 7:18 ESV

(18)  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Many look at all the suffering and death in the world and become annoyed at the concept of a good God who is love. For this good God is either able to do something about it and will not or he can't. Either way in their mind it disqualifies the concept of a good God. The problem is God truly is good and man truly is corrupt from the core of his being.

The great redemptive story is playing out in human history.  In the midst of a sin-cursed world God leaves Himself not without witness. For the man that despises God, the joys of life are afforded to him. He is able to love and be loved, to experience joy and peace, to work and reap his reward. None of these things are deserved, for he despises God or the concept of a god and is cursed. Yet, he is afforded all these things and gives not God the glory. The world is cursed, and human history is cursed, yet God still sends His mercy into the midst of the suffering and judgment for a reprieve and to lead men to repentance. Repentance is not something man gives to God, but something God grants to men, for even that is not deserved. 

 2 Timothy 2:25 ESV

(25)  correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

If indeed man was not guilty, if sin was not inherent in his very being, then one perhaps could read the accounts of the flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah and cry, "Unjust"! One might esteem the children deserving of life more than others. If there was a single man that lived a life without a mark of unrighteousness, then perhaps the God of the Bible is all the critics say He is. But logic demands if you are going to judge God based upon what the Bible says He is, you must judge man for what the Bible says he is.

In Romans Paul tells us,  Romans 3:10 ESV (10)  as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; that is not a single one, ever! If that is the requirement, and not a single one meets the requirement, what does he deserve? Does he deserve another chance? Does he deserve to have a good life and peace? He deserves nothing, yet God gives him all these things and time to repent, and still, he will not. Oh, but some will point to all the good things that men do. But it earns them nothing, their righteousness is corrupt. 

Isaiah 64:6 ESV

(6)  We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

We do a good deed, then some hidden motive resting in our heart brings it to ruin. Robert Robinson wrote as a young man in his twenties a few years after his conversion, "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it. Prone to leave the God I love".  They appeared in 1758 in one of the stanzas of his now classic hymn, “Come, thou fount of ev’ry blessing.” The hymn as a whole is a great testimony to the grace of God that had saved him, notwithstanding a heart that was “prone to wander.” This is the experience of every Christian, I feel it, a heart prone to wander. I am all familiar with it myself, I feel it in every good deed. A thought, a desire, a look to be noticed, a want for someone to see me, someone to recognize me for the good person I am. It is that corrupt selfish heart in us that pollutes every act of righteousness. Those good deeds may indeed make me look like a good man in the eyes of the world, but I am in ruins when presented to God as righteous. 

This is why the Gospel is so precious to Christians, we see the condition of our hearts, yet God has forgiven us and loved us. This is beyond the Christian understanding, of how such a Being could love such a creature. We have thousands of years of history, and in all of that, we have only been able to sustain civility for short brief moments of time before our depravity breaks out again. Throughout redemptive history, God gave laws and instructions to the prophets to curb our sins. Yet we still break through and expose ourselves for what we are. Yet as he promised he has delivered us by and for himself.  

For reasons beyond our flat understanding, we are unable to raise ourselves beyond our fallen condition. This God took upon himself a body of flesh like unto ourselves and lived the life we could not live. Then he presented Himself as a substitute on our behalf to satisfy His own demands of justice that we in turn might be free. He was then raised from the dead to validate the victory. Through faith in this work, we are received and considered righteous, and even this is by grace, being nothing of ourselves. Scripture makes it clear we are still in this world, and it is still cursed. Therefore, our children still die, our bodies still weaken, and our minds still fade away. But when this life passes, we are judged in Him and not in ourselves. This is (the) great comfort to the Christian in this life.  

David

"A Jealous God"

I received some objections from my last blog post "The Human Condition" which will make for some good conversation on some succeeding blog posts. Let's grab objection number one and see what we have. Sarge says, "The God character is a jealous God because he forbids/commands his people to have no other God before them." You can read the full list of his objection by going to the link above and looking in the comment section.

Has Sarge made a warrantied charge against the character of God? After all, the scripture does say,

Exodus 34:14 ESV

(14)  (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

According to Webster's 1828 edition, Jealous is defined as JEALOUS, a. jel'us.

1. Suspicious; apprehensive of rivalship; uneasy through fear that another has withdrawn or may withdraw from one the affections of a person he loves, or enjoy some good which he desires to obtain; followed by of, and applied both to the object of love and to the rival. We say, a young man is jealous of the woman he loves, or jealous of his rival. A man is jealous of his wife,and the wife of her husband.

2. Suspicious that we do not enjoy the affection or respect of others, or that another is more loved and respected than ourselves.

3. Emulous; full of competition.

4. Solicitous to defend the honor of; concerned for the character of.

Are we to understand the character of God in this manner? Even more, than the definition, Sarge is correct in his statement that God did forbid or command his people to have no other god before him? Does that not constitute the character described in Mr. Webster's definition? Actually, the fourth design for the use of the word comes pretty close to the meaning intended as applied to God. Understandably most people cringe when they hear the word used to describe God. But open your Bible, and you will discover that the word is often applied to God. In fact, not only is God said to be jealous (Exodus 20:3–5), but his very name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14). He not only acts in jealous ways, but he is jealous by nature.

The description of God as jealous is considered theologically an anthropopathic expression. These expressions use human characteristics to describe God's nature, actions, or attitudes in a manner that we, as humans, can understand and relate to. It is important to remember that our human language and concepts are often inadequate to fully capture the true essence of God's being.

God is a God of simplicity (his essence is identical to his attributes for he is without parts), eternality (he has no beginning or end, but is timeless), immutability (he does not change), and impassibility (he is not subject to emotional fluctuation and suffering). All this means that he does not become jealous, as if he were not jealous for his glory before. Rather, he simply is jealous, and he is so eternally and immutably. In fact, it is the most righteous thing he can be! 

The Theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) put it this way: "God is someone than whom none greater can be conceived. He is the perfect Being." Anselm does not mean, as we are prone to think, that God is just a bigger, better version of ourselves, merely greater in measure or quantity. Rather, God is a different type of being altogether. He is not merely greater in size; he is greater in essence. For his divine essence is immeasurable, unbounded, and incomprehensible. In a word, he is the perfect Being because he is the infinite Being, what the church fathers called “pure Being” or “pure act.” In other words, He is someone who has the absolute right to command our exclusive devotion and consecration to Himself. “God is not a particular being among others, not even the highest one: He is his being. One cannot speak of God as if He were ‘this’ but not ‘that’ . . . God is not one amidst others, particularized within the common space of being, but He is ‘being itself’ (ipsum esse)." - Rudi re Velde. If God is the perfect Being, someone than whom none greater can be conceived, then he would be unable to point us to something or someone else for our worship. Indeed, he would be unloving and doing His people harm to do so. For if he is the supreme Being, then the greatest joy and happiness in life can be found in him and him alone. Therefore His jealousy is a reflection of his perfection. Sarg objected stating, "In your second paragraph you proclaim non-believers will soon meet their fate when they displease the Almighty and jealous God. You admit the Christian God is a jealous God." This is absolutely true, the difference is how we view the nature of God's being in relation to His jealousy. Martin Luther said of Erasmus, "Your god is too human," which is the view Sarg and most non-believers have. They make their judgment and arguments from a human perspective. Human jealousy is often sinful and selfish, it is a desire that is not deserved. Paul speaks of a different kind of jealousy in 2 Corinthians 11:2 ESV 2. For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. Jealousy that desires one's faithfulness to all that is right and good is divine jealousy, and since "God is someone than whom none greater can be conceived." there could not be a more perfect and righteous jealousy. Next time we will look at objection number 2.

David