This reminded me of what Peter said when people were leaving Jesus because of His difficult teachings in John 6:66-69:
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
We can’t brush Jesus off. Through Him we come to understand and accept God’s character. That’s why Paul said he aimed to preach only Christ and Him crucified. It has more power than any intellectual feat of theodicy can ever attain.
So, it turns out that this sentiment is affirmed in scripture, in Heb 1…
1In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
I think part of what this passage is saying is that God spoke to us in the OT, but He speaks much more clearly to us in Jesus. In fact, Jesus is the “exact representation” of God’s being. The OT is important, but it is hard to see God’s character clearly in it. Jesus is different. He is God “in the flesh.”
Just keep following Jesus, and the rest might make more sense with time. Hopefully you have found a good church where you can study the Bible with other people. That can really help in seeing God more clearly in the OT. He is there too, just not nearly as clearly as in Jesus. That is one reason why Jesus came, to help us know the God who created us rightly.
Joshua, as my posts on this Forum obviously indicate, I was not brought up in an ‘Evangelical environment’ (e.g. believing sola scruptura), and I, like B.T.K., I was greatly troubled by the image of God that I got from reading the O.T. Posts from a number of Biologos contributors (expert biblical scholars) have enlightened me a great deal, but your quote (above) is perhaps the most clear and concise. Thank you.
Like B.T.K., I had to come face to face with this question in 1968 when my beloved nephew, Jackie Urquhart, was dying of leukemia. Over and over, in my mind, I asked: "God, how can you let this happen?" After stopping to listen, I got an answer: "Well, what are YOU doing about it?" Then it hit me. God asks each of us to be, in any way we can, Co-Creators with Him. My college mentor had an NIH grant to devise computer methods to design better drugs to cure leukemia (just coincidentally??). So I convinced him to take me on as a post-doc, and we worked closely with all the major pharmaceutical companies in the world. I cannot claim that any of our work led to any specific advanced treatment, but the type of leukemia that Jackie contracted is no longer a death sentence.
I now have more sympathy for the writers of Job. There were so many bad things happening to good people that humanity was utterly powerless to cope with. There still are. But at least our societies have progressed to the point that we have some tools with which to attack them. Of course we have also built "tools’ that could lead to our destruction. Go figure. Are we going to accept the invitation to become co-creators of an Earthly Kingdom with Him? Or are we bringing upon ourselves an atomic Armaggedon as a precursor of the Second Coming?
Al Leo
Jonathan, with the goal of a systematic view of the Gospel, I would suggest that the role of Abraham, Moses and Job was relevant PRIOR to the New Testament and Post-New Testament period.
The part where instead of saying “I don’t like what you’ve asked me to do but I will follow your instructions blindly without question because you’re the boss”, he says “Please find a way to get me out of here, I really don’t want to do this”.
But I haven’t seen anyone interpret it as saying “I don’t like what you’ve asked me to do but I will follow your instructions blindly without question because you’re the boss and I can’t question your orders”. Have you?
Even in your rejections, you don’t describe what you are rejecting. So now… 3 posts later… we finally find out what you reject.
And yet … do you offer a counter-explanation of what Romans 9 IS relevant to? No.
You leave all of this as a guessing game for your audience.
SO… after all these wasteful posts (one of your hallmarks)… can you EXPLAIN why you don’t think Romans 9 doesn’t apply to Jason - - but DOES apply to something else? You know… EXPLAIN what you mean… for a change.
If I knew right from the start, how come I was able to think (even wrongly) that you rejected Romans 9 outright? It is because your rejection was half-stated. And AGAIN, you half-state your objection. By refusing to explain how Romans 9 is validly applied to something else … you think we will find it more plausible that it is not applicable to Jason’s complaint.
But I think you are selling shinola. The only way to substantiate your claim is to SHOW your audience how Jason’s complaint is DIFFERENT from the valid applications.
Jason wants to know why God has left a mess (not a question). And Jason even asks why anyone thinks it is our role to CLEAN UP God’s mess. If that isn’t Defiant talk… nothing is.
You alone can explain that. I never mentioned Romans 9, you threw it at me insinuating that I thought it was “a load of crap”, when I had never even mentioned it. You brought it up, not me.
But I don’t need to in this case. You have to show that it applies to what Jason said. You’re making the argument from Romans 9 remember, not me.
Easy; in this part of Romans 9 Paul is talking of those who challenge God’s right to judge sinners as He sees fit. He is not talking about people who have difficulties in their lives and who struggle with the problem of how God can permit evil to exist (like Jason). But you have to show that it applies validly to Jason’s complaint.
No. On the contrary, Jason has completely rejected the idea that God leaves a mess and we have to clean it up. He found that abhorrent. That idea did not come from him at all.
Jason doesn’t think it’s our role to clean up God’s mess. He has explicitly rejected such an idea. He said “Surely it is not our job to clean up His mess”.
