Response to Assignment 7

*Sorry this is late.*

God’s Justice

[Because God loves everybody] All people receive everlasting life.

John 3:16

God's justice is one of the most difficult and uncomfortable characteristics for people to encounter. The premise that a good, loving and wholly perfect God would submit a member of his creation to eternal punishment is perturbing, unsettling, and revolting in an increasingly post-modern world. In a culture in which every claim to truth is unassailable and all views are supposed to co-exist, the belief that God would wish to punish those who do not adhere to a very strict religious code seems absurd and most disgustingly, extremely arrogant and exclusive. As a result of such social tension, many modern theologians have attempted to move aside the truth of God’s judgment in favor of a more accommodating view of God. As such, they take verses which speak of justice and judgment, and both over-emphasis certain passages while completely dismissing others.

In view of deconstructing John 3:16 we must analyze the four clauses which the verse hinges upon. They are, in order

1. For God so loved the world

2. That He gave his only begotten Son

3. That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish

4. But have everlasting (eternal) life.

Of course, when attempting to rid this verse of its most obvious pronouncement of justice, the first clause we would seek to remove is 3. ‘That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish’ is the strongest example of God’s justice and judgment. It is the explicit statement that such justice and judgment exists and of course, must be the first to go. However, in removing that section from the verse, we must also remove the second clause ‘That He gave his only begotten Son’. This clause must be removed for two reasons. The first is that it indicates God’s ‘judgment’ against his Son. Though the verse does not explicitly state it, we know that God ‘gave’ his Son up to act as the propitiation of our sins. God’s plan for His Son was to mete out His judgment. His Son, then, was the instrument and focal point of His justice. However, if there is no judgment, then God could not have given His Son to fulfill that purpose. The second reason this clause must be removed is that it indicates God’s justice against us. Christ served as the propitiation for OUR sins. However, if we have not sinned or if there is no punishment for such action, then what need do we have for propitiation? In the absence of sin, God did not need to send His Son, and as such, this clause does not serve any useful purpose.

Therefore, most modern, liberal theologians would argue that the verse is best served by reading it as it is presented above. They are comfortable, even joyous at the prospect of God’s love. Their belief is that there is no possible way that God could not love us. And in the presence of such love, justice could not be present and judgment could not be forthcoming. A loving God could not possibly have any use for the punishment or depravity of hell. As such, since we know that God has unbounded love for us, and there is no possibility of judgment, the only other alternative is that we will all receive eternal life, regardless of what he do in this lifetime. At least…that’s what they would argue.

*I’m going to deviate from the question here to explore the problem of the above discussed interpretation*

Of course, such a reading of John 3:16 is both misleading and logically inconsistent. As written above, I have placed the clause, ‘For God so loved the world’ in brackets because in the absence of God’s justice, his love must also be removed. Of course, liberal theologians would argue against this, but for a variety of reasons, God’s manifested love is intrinsically tied to his justice. The original verse reads, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ A rough paraphrasing of this verse would yield us the following: Because God loved man so much He sent His only Son to die for us. Now, if we believe and accept Christ’s sacrifice as substitute for our own punishment, we do not have to die, but instead, can have everlasting life. Looking at the verse this way, we see that God’s love has a direct connection with his justice. As the verse says, God sent His Son to die because He loves us. The act of sending His Son is the very proof of His love! If we remove that offering, if we negate that sacrifice, then we must also agree that this verse cannot show proof of God’s love. According to this verse at least (and I would argue this is indicative of the entire Bible) God has not shown that He loves us unless He sends His Son. This seems like circular logic, and for all intents and purposes it is, but it must be, because the premise of God’s love –is- circular. God loves us, and as such, sent his Son to die. However, by sending His Son to die, God proved his love. The truth of each premise is reliant upon another. Of course, this is not to say that God could not have loved us without sending His Son, but without such proof, such love would not be manifest. Of course, since we can’t prove God’s love without his justice, we must remove it as well so that the verse simply reads ‘All receive eternal life’. However, that verse has none of the impact, power, or awesomeness that the true verse holds. In this interpretation, God does not love us, God has not saved us, we were never in danger, and as such, eternal life is no longer a marvelous blessing to be enjoyed, but simply our unquestioned inheritance. Like a child born into an extremely wealthy family, we could never understand the riches that we have been given, because we would never understand what the lack of such riches would mean.

God’s Mercy

As we discussed in the previous exercise, God’s faithfulness means that he can never change, nor do any of his qualities take precedence over others. To apply that to God’s mercy then, we must realize that God is at all times equally just and merciful. To say that the ‘God of the Old Testament’ was an ‘angry, judging God’ while the ‘God of the New Testament’ is loving and merciful is a completely illogical statement. If God never changes then there is no God of the Old Testament/God of the New Testament. There is only God and he has always been the same. However, for the sake of discussion and further research, we will place such truth and knowledge aside so that we can delve into these perceived, erroneous differences.

At first glance, the sentiment that God was angry or vengeful during Old Testament times is understandable. We are constantly presented with stories regarding God’s judgment. Some of the more impactful stories regard the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, the plagues against the Egyptians, the 40 year punishment of the Israelites, the prophetic warnings by Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the ultimate conquering of the Israelites by numerous peoples. Read in abstract, these stories could easily create the inference that God must have been very angry and quite vengeful. However, such an inference would be a gross misunderstanding. R.C. Sproul argues that rather than vengeance the Old Testament is a picture of God’s mercy. He contends that mercy is shown because the examples of God’s judgment are restrained and withheld except in the most extenuating of circumstances. Returning to our previous examples, in each instance God was nothing less than completely justified in dealing with his rebellious creation. Sodom and Gomorrah had become a cesspool of depravity and sin, the Egyptian Pharaoh had challenged the very power and authority of God, and the Israelites from the moment they were released from captivity throughout the rest of the Old Testament engage in conduct where they reject God, defy his authority and laws, worship idols, consort with the godless and a number of other transgressions against God. However, as we know, during all of this time, ALL people were deserving of justice. The fact that God has not completely once again decimated the earth with a Noah-esque flood is because he is merciful and withholds the complete judgment that they deserved.

As to the belief that now God is more merciful than he previously was, we need only consider that the two greatest acts of God’s judgment are both contained within the New Testament. The first, the crucifixion of Christ, is the moment at which the fullness of God’s wrath is completely poured out upon one person. The crucifixion is the most severe and shocking example of God’s wrath. Those who believe that God is somehow more merciful completely overlook the fact that any perceived mercy is because God’s wrath has already been poured out on a completely innocent and undeserving person. Furthermore, they’re also overlooking the second most shocking example of God’s wrath; Armageddon. To say that God no longer exhibits justice is to completely ignore that at the time of his choosing he will judge the entire world.