The Sermon on the Mount: Law or Gospel?

You've heard the expression, "The devil is in the details?" When people say this they mean that small things in plans and schemes that are often overlooked can cause serious problems later on. Some have suggested that this idiomatic phrase was derived from the supposed original statement that "God is in the detail." The truth in either idiom is the same however: details, sometimes even small ones, are important! It's the small details of something which can often muddle or confuse someone's judgment about something very important.

This is especially true in theology I think. When it comes to interpreting the Bible in preparation for preaching, unfortunately, I've discovered that the failure to be attentive to seemingly small details in a passage can derail an entire sermon. Clearly, even missing the detail of a single verse in your sermon could have a drastic outcome in the perception by the congregation of your interpretation not only on the passage you are preaching from, but on your entire take on the Gospel!

I recently heard a sermon where the pastor interpreted Matthew 5:48 in such a way that it suggested that he was at least confused about whether the Sermon on the Mount as a whole was to be understood as being in reference to the Law or the Gospel. This confusion occurs frequently enough I suppose, but it is alarming none the less because it means that as a church body we generally do not have any foundation regarding the necessity of clarifying this distinction between Law and Gospel.

Fleshing out the Necessity of Making this Distinction

We live in a day when few professing Christians bother to seek to understand either the law or the gospel as they were intended to be understood, much less their relationship to each other.

This distinction that the theologians of old were convinced needed to be clarified in preaching was that the Law condemns, threatens, and brings no good will to men; and the Gospel gives life where the Law brings death. This must be communicated clearly in a sermon otherwise the hearer fails to find the wrath and condemnation of the Law, which is intended to drive him to Christ; nor do they find the mercy and grace in the Gospel. If the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the seriousness and inescapability of the condemnation of God's law, then it must not be suggested that anyone can be perfectly obedient to it as it requires; or that Christ was suggesting that anyone could obey it as it was intended to be obeyed when He said in Matthew 5:48, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Just as God is perfect, just, good, unchanging, etc., the same is true of His law -- it is a perfect, unchanging expression of His character.  There is a universal application of God's law too.  It refers to all people, of all nations and all ages.   

Jeremiah 6:19; Romans 3:19; Leviticus 24:22; Psalm 47:2-9. 

Another aspect of the law is its universality.  There isn't more than one standard for obedience.  The law that was revealed to Moses is Christ's law.  It didn't originate with Moses. It was God's law revealed to him:

God's law (Jeremiah 31:33) =

the law of Christ (Matthew 5:17) =

the law of Moses (10 Commandments Deuteronomy 4:13)

John Murray said

"The law is the moral perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of life and conduct."

In The Life of St. Paul, James Stalker writes

The law has no creative power to make the carnal spiritual. It cannot change an unrighteous heart into a righteous one. The purpose of the law is rather to aggravate the evil; it multiplies offenses. It is fully able to describe the sins of human nature, but rather than serving as a roadmap to avoid them, the Law turns into the temptation to sin.

The whole history before Christ could aptly be described as God allowing time to prove that fallen man could never reach righteousness by his own efforts, and when He had demonstrated that man’s righteousness was a complete failure – He brought in His secret weapon: The righteousness of God.

This is Christianity. This was the sum of Christ and His mission – the conferring upon man as a free gift, of that which is indispensable to his blessedness, but which he himself had failed to obtain by the keeping of the law. It is a divine act; it is grace; and man obtains it only by acknowledging that he has failed himself to attain it and by accepting it from God; it is got by faith only. It is “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon them that believe.”  The law was no part of salvation. It belonged entirely to the preliminary demonstration of man’s failure .

Martin Luther said that the law ought never to be preached apart from the Gospel, and the Gospel ought never to be preached apart from the law.

"If any man be not a murderer, an adulterer, a thief and outwardly refrain from sin, he will swear that he is righteous and presume on his good works and merits.  Such a one God cannot otherwise mollify and humble, that he may acknowledge his misery and his damnation but by the law; for that is the hammer of death and the thundering of hell and the lightening of God's wrath to beat to powder obstinate and senseless hypocrites."

[Grace in Galatians, Rev. George Bishop, 1912, p. 52]

William Perkins explains how confusion stems from a failure to distinguish whether or not a passage is speaking about the Law or the Gospel:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it…. A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them….

By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works.… The Law is, therefore, first in order of teaching; then comes the gospel. [William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 54.]

Theodore Beza said the same:

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings… "'The Law'" is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." "The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own 'righteousness.' Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." [Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien].

Calvin also discussed this issue, showing us why we needed to understand which one was being brought forth in God's revelation:

...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him." [Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, tr. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10].

"Thus," Calvin observes, "Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is 'a compensation for their lack,' not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.” [Calvin, 1559 Institutes 3.14.13, italics mine].

Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ. [Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author].

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that

the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the Holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein." [Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.]

Louis Berkoff stated that this distinction is not merely to be understood as being in either one or the other of the testaments either:

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus.

[Pasted from <http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-treatise-on-the-law-and-the-gospel/> ]

Let me conclude this section with some observances that the Rev. George Bishop makes in his commentary on Galatians regarding the purpose of the law:

 = The law has its place, (if a man uses it lawfully -- i.e., according to its proper design and intention) although it cannot save or help to save any man…

= The law serves the necessary purpose of showing what sin is, and the impossibility of fallen man's obedience.  It was added … in order to bring sin to light and [severely and well-deservedly] condemn it.

= …the harder [man] works for salvation, the more surely he damns himself.  The law then comes in like a hammer and knocks this snake on its head … the law smites the doer of the law for righteousness whether it be doing in whole or in part.

= The law locks the door on the sinner; Christ unlocks the door and sets it wide open. 

= This is how a man becomes a child of God -- not by keeping the law, nor by trying to keep it, but by simply believing on Christ. (pgs. 49-55)

Though the Reformers were most careful to clarify and make this distinction in their preaching, this is by no means critical only if one is interested in Scripture from a Reformed perspective. This does add credence to the argument however, that in general, Reformed theologians are more careful in their understanding of theology with respect to a systematic approach to the Bible. Making this distinction is hard work, and can be easily overlooked by beginner theologians, more so by beginning Christians.

The Verse  in Question

Why is Christ's first recorded sermon characterized by Law and not by grace? Why are the themes of God's mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, compassion and grace absent from the Sermon on the Mount?  Why isn't there even a thread of explanation of grace?

Because you need to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience to His law, and that you are utterly incapable of accomplishing that before you can ever understand the extent and the need for His grace.

The passage in question was Matthew 5:17-48.  The verse in question is Matthew 5:48: "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." In the context of the entire passage of the Sermon, should this verse be understood as Jesus speaking about the absolute condemnation inherent in the Law?  Or should it be understood as explaining the grace of the Gospel?

Charles Erdman, in his Commentary on Matthew, wrote

"The Sermon sets forth the fundamental laws of the Kingdom … and it fills the heart of the hearer with bewilderment and despair.  It reveals a divine ideal and a perfect standard of conduct by which all men are condemned as sinful and to which men can attain only by divine help … Its theme is the righteousness which the King requires.

A little homework about how many modern scholars interpret the Sermon on the Mount shows that most don't see any reference to the Gospel in it at all! Though Bill Bright's conclusions and perspectives are Dispensational leaning, I do believe the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ has addressed the interpretational problem correctly by noting that the Sermon on the Mount is devoid of grace!

“It could not be that Christ was addressing the Christian Church in the Sermon on the Mount ... There is nothing about the Holy Spirit, our position in Christ, [or] redemption through the blood of Christ in this sermon ... As a way of salvation it is useless.... It is legal, not gracious in character, and is full of judgments and threats (Matthew 5:22-29).  It offers no salvation to any man.  The non-Christian world, which so admires this sermon, is condemned to hell by it.  As a way of sanctification it is useless.... the motive is fear, not love.... The way of grace is not here.”

I would contend that his comment that 'As a way of salvation it is useless' is perhaps shortsighted. It might be better to say that without a proper grasp of the severity of the law as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no sense of one's need to run to Christ for salvation. So the Sermon in itself is useless to save, unless it is seen as the catalyst for man to see his complete failure to observe the perfect requirements of the law and seek salvation in Christ alone. This is why it is critical to keep a proper perspective on the intent of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

It appears that the Pharisees Jesus was referring to were thinking that the Law wasn't that hard to keep. All you had to do was not commit adultery, for instance, and you had kept that aspect of the law. But Christ shows us clearly that the intent of the law was much more serious. Its intent was to show you that you couldn't keep it! If you had lustful thoughts in your heart for a woman, you had already committed adultery with her. It wasn't about whether or not you could get close to keeping the law either, and yet still be righteous.

The purpose of Christ’s comments about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount is to show us our inability to keep the Law perfectly, with the intention of having us flee to the mercy of Christ as Savior. For a pastor to conclude his sermon on this passage by suggesting that Christ's last comment in this section (5:48) was a plea for us to radically obey the Law, by saying, “In what way should we imitate God? Radical obedience to the law and loving others," clearly suggests that he missed making this important distinction.

The issue that Jesus was demonstrating in his discussion of the law in the Sermon on the Mount was that it is impossible to keep the law, regardless if you were attempting to keep it in a Pharisaical way, or as a believer. This is why I am suggesting that Jesus' remark "You shall be perfect just as your heavenly Father in heaven is perfect" is not a command for us be more obedient, but rather, the final nail in our coffin of self righteousness delineating our condemnation that the law presents.

Jesus concluded this section of the Sermon with the words "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." The pastor said that verse meant, "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." In other words, he was suggesting that Jesus was commanding that the hearer actually be perfect in his actions as God is perfect!  Now if that were possible, one certainly would not need Christ or the mercy found in Him alone.

I believe Jesus was actually driving a nail into anyone's self-righteous coffin with this statement! He is actually saying that the Law demands complete perfection -- and therefore, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to fulfill it by any human effort! If this is what Jesus meant, one can only wonder why the pastor would have said it means "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." This interpretation, it seems, is simply a moralistic platitude.

Granted, it isn't often that we hear pastors in evangelical churches make statements like this. An ex-Mormon who heard this sermon was deeply troubled by this pastor's take on this verse -- and rightly so. Taken at its face value, she thought his statement was about as close to Mormon doctrine as one can get. After all, Mormon doctrine would interpret this verse just like this based on their understanding of theology!

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

"Christ [Was] Not Begotten of [the] Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing with the Mormon church.

Pasted from <http://carm.org/teachings-of-mormonism>

Now please understand that I am not suggesting that this pastor intentionally meant to teach a doctrine anything like the Mormon doctrine of man becoming God. It just so happened, that his interpretation at this point was virtually identical to Mormon doctrine. What I am saying is that his presentation was unclear enough to suggest that he at least inadvertently misrepresented Matthew's intent with his interpretation because of his failure to make the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Hence, the importance of clearly defining how we understand the law/gospel distinction in our sermons. For an ex-Mormon to walk away from this sermon not knowing what the pastor intended to mean is at least poor communication.

What about Obedience?

Part of the distinction we are talking about also means that we are not suggesting that the Law has no significance in the life of the Christian believer any longer either. It is critical to remember that even Christian so called 'obedience' to the law is sinful and imperfect. It is not that the Law should now be ignored (antinomianism), or that it should become our means of salvation (legalism), but rather that it becomes the Christian's guide to understanding the will of God.

… the unparalleled tendency of the historic Reformed faith [is] to ground its adherents in the vast and glorious freedom of the Gospel, and always in such a way as not to minimize a life of practical holiness, but rather to excite and encourage true piety and devotion [due to the grace received in the Gospel] http://www.reformedbooks.net/review_lawgospel.php.

Michael Horton wrote that

we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness [The Law & the Gospel, Michael S. Horton, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996].

Horton further clarifies the need to be most careful in our explanation:

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself.

While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). In fact Calvin took this thought even farther by writing that

The logical consequence of [the] doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is that never, not even after the remission of our sins, are we really righteous. On the contrary, we have noted that the sanctification which accompanies justification, or at least begins with it, enables us to become precisely more and more aware of our sin [Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of his Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1950), 258-259].

Calvin says the same thing here as well:

For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification. Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal for holiness and innocence. But where consciences are worried how to render God favorable, what they will reply, and with what assurance they will stand should they be called to his judgment, there we are not to reckon what the law requires, but Christ alone, who surpasses all perfection of the law, must be set forth as [our] righteousness. [Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.18]

The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

 Jesus was putting the final nail in the coffin of our doom with this statement in 5:48 by meaning that all of us are subjected to the death, condemnation and misery inherent in the severity of God's law, which he just articulated in the Sermon on the Mount in 5:17-48.  Didn't Jesus mean that thinking we have somehow kept the Ten Commandments means that there can be no escaping His judgment?

The pastor's comment then that “The intent of the law is to bring life,” at the close of the sermon, clearly reveals a failure to understand this distinction between gospel and law. In 2 Corinthians 3:7 it is clarified that the Ten Commandments are the ministry of death, not life, as this pastor said.

This particular exposition of Second Corinthians 3:2-18 clarifies this.

"The law is literal, it rests on written documents … and what is spiritual is the Gospel…. The Apostle says he is drawing a parallel … between the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former 'kills,' inasmuch as it denounces death without hope on all who disobey it; … the spiritual system of the Gospel brings life and immortality to light, and affords the means of salvation, it imparts life, new life, by the Holy Spirit… [Law and grace] are contrasted as to their tendency: that of the Law was punishment: that of the Gospel was reformation, rather than punishment; salvation rather than condemnation." [Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament with Notes, vol. ii, 186].

In summary then we must note what the failure to clearly make this distinction implies:

“The law and the gospel are the principal parts of divine revelation; or rather they are the center, sum, and substance of all the other parts of it. Every passage of sacred Scripture is either law or gospel, or is capable of being referred either to the one or to the other . . . If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth. If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.” —John Colquhoun

Pasted from <http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-Treatise-on-the-Law-and-Gospel-p-18409.html

There is an excellent book on this topic called A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun, ed. Rev. Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999) that is well worth the time to read.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A 'LITERALIST'

Let me say something unequivocally about what it means to interpret something ‘literally:’

It is probably fair to say that, when it comes to Bible interpretation … there is no such thing as a ‘literalist'!

This is a curious notion really, and many fail to give this any serious reflection.  This is especially true in light of the question I hear frequently from my unbelieving friends: “You don’t interpret the Bible literally do you?” My answer is usually that I take it literally, depending on the context.

So as not to appear to let my theological predisposition taint the discussion, (as if to assume that Amillennialists might have a better grasp on the definition than Dispensationalists), here is a quote defining literal interpretation from J. Dwight Pentecost, a solid Dispensational Premillennialist from Dallas Theological Seminary, from his book, Things to Come 'A Study in Biblical Eschatology':

“The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.”

This concern for interpreting the Bible literally is not just an issue that comes up between unbelievers and believers.  First, let's think about what it means to say that we want to "give each word the same basic meaning it would normally have" in interpretation, and then I’ll examine more closely other problem areas that occur in our literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The Problem with Interpreting the Word All Literally

It shouldn't be surprising that this issue of literal interpretation finds its way into the heart of the ongoing interpretative debate between Calvinists and Arminians, as depicted in this comment:

The Calvinistic effort to limit this word [all] to “all the elect” constitutes one of the saddest chapters in exegesis. The Scriptures shine with the “all” of universality, but Calvinists do not see it. Their one effort is to find something that would justify them to reduce “all” to “some.” Calvin himself says that all = all kinds, all classes, rich and poor, high and low, rejecting no class, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual. [R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minnesota: Augsbury Publishing House, 1963), 1029].

No wonder there are so many issues with interpretation! Christians can’t even agree what the words all and many mean.  If we say we want to interpret these words consistently or normally or ordinarily, and not contextually, in order to get at the literal sense, we run into all kinds of trouble. 

Looking closely at the use of these two words in just two verses of Romans chapter 5, we find that Paul used each of the terms all and many to mean both ‘each and every individual’, and ‘some individuals,’ depending entirely upon the contextual usage and not by interpreting it normally, ordinarily, consistently or literally.

^{NKJ Romans 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men [every existing individual], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men [all who believe], resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many [every existing individual] were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many [all who believe] will be made righteous.}

Clearly, Lenski's comment that Calvinists fail to interpret the word all in its ordinary, consistent and normal use is surprising.  Would he suggest that Christ's obedience made every individual person righteous before God, even the unbeliever?

What is the Literal Interpretation of Prophesy?

This problem of interpretation also exists between Amillennialists and Dispensationalists.

Almost all of the problems associated with why there are different views of the book of Revelation are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation. And using words like normal and plain for the basis of our understanding from the definition above, depends radically on context; and not just context of the verse. When we interpret any passage anywhere in the Bible, we need to consider:

The particular words being used; the verse the words appear in; the paragraph the verse is in; the chapter the paragraph is in; the book the chapter is in; the Testament the book is in; and the entirety of Scripture, in order to get the meaning in each context.

Even more importantly however is that no matter how plain or how literal we think we are in our interpretation, if we do not arrive at what the author intended to say, no degree of plainness or literalness will help us arrive at a correct interpretation.

What the author (being moved by the Spirit) meant the verse to mean is what it literally means, regardless of whether or not we interpret it in a literal or figurative sense. And we must concede up front, that the author had one specific intended meaning when he wrote. Whether or not we think we have the literal or plain meaning is not the issue it seems to me.

Naturally, there are certain liabilities to using the words literal and plain to describe how we understand certain Scriptures. Claiming to and adhering to a literal translation in all cases of prophesy, for example, as most every Dispensationalist is prone to do, would make for some untrue interpretations, would it not? Daniel 9:26 is a good example:

“...And the people of the prince who is to come

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood.”

First, we need to be sure about which period of time this occurs in: is this prophesy referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (as most commentators agree that it was)? If so, did Daniel not rather speak spiritually or figuratively here by using the word 'flood' and mean that the city would be flooded with the soldiers of Titus? Wouldn’t interpreting the passage literally and in the normal and plain use of the word 'flood' make that prophesy untrue?

What about the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants would possess the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18)? Some Dispensationalists suggest that this prophesy has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled at some time in the future.

^{NKJ Genesis 15:18-21 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."}

According to my reading of the Bible, this promise was fulfilled under the leadership of Joshua 600 years after the promise was given to Abraham! Read Joshua 11:23. Every major version of Scripture says "whole land." Deuteronomy 1:8 says that "you are to go in and possess the land which Jehovah swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them." Read Joshua 21:43-45. All versions are similarly interpreted: “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel.” Those verses seem to me to sum up that the promises of the land have been fulfilled.    

What is the Literal Interpretation of the Everlastingness of God’s Promises?

Understanding the everlastingness of God's promises presents us with another example of the difficulty of interpreting passages literally: What about the aspect of  'everlastingness' in the promises God made? Is there an obligation on God's part to fulfill what were clearly 'everlasting' promises?  Does our fascination with literalness bind us to making God have to deal with Israel in a particular way in the distant future because God still needs to keep His 'everlasting' promises to Israel?

Can an Old Testament promise be said to be eternal, yet cease to be in effect? Apparently so. The Old Testament use of the word "eternal" must be interpreted according to the radius of time being dealt with. For instance, each example listed below was instituted and pronounced by God Himself to be an eternal promise given to Israel. I've given you the verses so you can read for yourself that these are eternal promises:

Sabbath- Exodus 31:13-16; Ezekiel 20:12ff

Circumcision- Genesis 17:11-13

Priesthood- Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13

Perpetuity of Solomon's house- 2 Chronicles 7:16

There are a couple of preliminary issues to keep in the back of our minds as we proceed here: One is whether the word eternal means something like 'completed in the distant-and-as-yet-unknown-future' only?  Or does the word eternal mean 'without ceasing from the moment I give the promise until time ceases'? Or does eternal mean 'until the fulfillment of the promise as God deems fit' comes, regardless of whether or not human beings think that that fulfillment has taken place?

I would suggest the following ways to pursue evaluating these difficulties:

(1) Though the Sabbath was an eternal promise given to the people of Israel, they repeatedly profaned it.  For those who would suggest that the giving of and the literal  keeping of the Sabbath are meant to be observed by Israel perpetually, regardless of what the Church deems proper, and regardless of how Israel responded centuries ago, Calvin suggested that Sabbath keeping was never intended by God to be perfected in Israel's practice of keeping one day set aside to observe God's rest. 

The Sabbath would never be perfected until the Last Day should come.  For we here begin our blessed rest in Him … it will not be consummated until … God shall be 'all in all' [1 Corinthians 15:28]...  It would seem that the Lord [was trying to] make them aspire to this perfection by unceasing meditation upon the Sabbath throughout life ...  There is no doubt that the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished …  [Sabbath keeping] is not confined within a single day but [is intended to] extend through the whole course of our life … Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days [2.8.30-31].

(2) Circumcision, according to Calvin, was likewise intended to be fulfilled in Christ.

… [circumcision] was a token and a reminder to confirm [to Israel] the promise given to Abraham of the blessed seed in which all nations of the earth were to be blessed [Genesis 22:18]… Now that saving seed (as we are taught by Paul) was Christ [Galatians 3:16], in whom alone they trusted … circumcision was the same thing to them as in Paul's teaching it was to Abraham, namely, a sign of the righteousness of faith [Romans 4:11] [4.14.21].

(3) An eternal priestly promise was in effect just as long as the Levitical priesthood existed for the time God intended it to remain in use.  The high priest was

… a mediator between God and men, to make satisfaction to God by the shedding of blood and by the offering of a sacrifice that would suffice for the forgiveness of sins.  This high priest was Christ [Hebrews 4:14; 5;5; 9:11]; he poured out his own blood; he himself was the sacrificial victim; he offered himself, obedient unto death, to the father [Philippians 2:8] [4.14.22].

In addition to this, we have the New Testament declaration that we Christians who have come to Christ are considered a 'holy priesthood … through Jesus Christ' [1 Peter 2:5].

(4) 2 Chronicles 7:16 says God promised to live in Solomon's house forever. Yet that house was destroyed and does not exist today. Did the God of eternal promises break His promise? Or did "forever" mean not 'from the time I instituted the promise till the end of time,' but "for as long as the house stood"? Or should the literal interpretation of these promises be to interpret them according to the radius of time in which they were issued and intended?

Promise with reference to the temple was binding upon God until the very second the temple ceased to exist; an eternal promise under the old covenant was in effect only during the life of that old covenant. To say the least, theological pandemonium has blossomed out of the attempt to make promises made under the law binding upon God long after the initial intent of the promise has served its purpose in God's program.

A legal eternal promise was in effect only as long as the ceremonial and civil law was in effect; an eternal promise to national Israel was in effect only as long as God dealt with Israel as a nation (and here there is quite a discrepancy, as the dispensationalist says God is till is waiting to finish dealing with Israel, and the Amillennialist says that there is no distinction between true Israel and the church; but again, it is a matter of one's hermeneutic).

Conclusion

It is theological pandemonium to attempt to take an "either-or" approach to all of Scripture, and as long as all of us are willing to admit that we are not unequivocally certain on every point as to which approach is the one the author intended, we are headed in the right direction. But let's not pick and choose either when it's convenient for us to do so, while not allowing someone else to do the same. Let's be intellectually honest in the process.  My point is that all of us at one time or another interpret some passages of the Bible figuratively or in a "spiritual" manner, and some we interpret as literal. 

The objective in Biblical interpretation should be to determine what the author intended the passage to mean when he wrote it. That is our only objective, not trying to determine whether or not a passage should be understood literally or symbolically by the degree of absurdity we believe the passage contains either.  One blog I read tried to establish this type of methodology: "Does it possess a degree of absurdity when taken literally? Example: Isaiah 55:12 “the trees of the fields will clap their hands.”  Aside from the fact that this is not a great example, this type of approach is entirely subjective.  Perhaps a more pertinent example might be "For if God  … cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment [2 Peter 2:4].  Should chains of darkness be considered an absurdity here?  I'm not sure that anyone knows.   

This same blogger wrote, "a symbolic view of 1000 years does not possess a degree of clarity," yet they fail to see the humor in this comment!  If the author was concerned that that particular symbolism led to a lack of clarity, and his one focus was to be clear in the passage, wouldn't he have chosen some other form of expression so to avoid the confusion?  Furthermore, who is confused? The author or the reader? Again, we are to determine not whether or not the author was clear in his language by our subjective considerations, but rather attempting to fathom, using the language that he used, what the author meant?  This is especially the case in light of the fact that he could have used other language if he thought lack of clarity would be a problem.  Perhaps the writer used '1000 years' with the intention of being purposefully unclear, meaning something like "a heck of a long time." Then again, maybe he meant exactly 1000 years to the day, and not 1000 years and 1 day!

What If It Were True That God Is Very Good?

“. . . . Indeed, it would seem very strange that Christianity should have come into the world merely to receive an explanation; as if it had been somewhat bewildered about itself, and hence entered the world to consult that wise man, the speculative philosopher, who can come to its assistance by furnishing the explanation.” -- Sören Kierkegaard

If God is so good, why does it look like he isn’t? It seems that nothing stirs the passions of the atheist more than the fact that Christianity asks the world to believe the impossible about God. Christians might have been able to get away with simply believing that somewhere out there in the abyss of infinity there is some vague disinterested and impotent something that some people have decided to call God. The atheist could have remained dispassionate if only that something would have remained unfamiliar, inexplicable and abstract enough so as not to interfere with the world’s perceptions.

But enough is enough, it seems; Christianity hasn’t simply asked us to believe that this God merely exists. It has asked us to believe that he’s knowable without empirical evidence. If that isn’t enough, it has asked us to believe that he’s more powerful than anything we can imagine; that he can do anything at all! More importantly it has asked us to believe that he has the best interests of this world in mind all the time. And finally, it has asked us to believe that he even cares about people and what happens to them in spite of his repeated failure to utilize his supposed attributes on their behalf.

And now that the world has clearly failed to see the enormity of this Christian proposition, and the travesty of irrationality that has been perpetrated against it by this belief, the atheist has been forced to come to the world’s intellectual rescue. Their antidote for this travesty that has been perpetrated against the world is a rational and logical explanation that can lead to only one conclusion: If there is any kind of God that exists, it certainly cannot be the God of Christianity. Christians have taken their faith too lightly, too illogically, too childishly it seems, and now the speculative philosopher must come to its rescue and furnish it with the only reasonable explanation for this outrageous claim: no such thing exists!

B.C. Johnson, for instance, in The Atheist Debater’s Handbook begins a chapter entitled God and the Problem of Evil with this illustration:

Here is a common situation: a house catches on fire and a six-month-old baby is painfully burned to death. Could we possibly describe as “good” any person who had the power to save this child and yet refused to do so? God undoubtedly has this power and yet in many cases of this sort he has refused to help. Can we call God “good”? Are there adequate excuses for this behavior? ....Certainly not. If we would not consider a mortal human being good under these circumstances, what grounds could we possibly have for continuing to assert the goodness of an all powerful God?[1]

There are two major concerns that will be addressed in this chapter: What constitutes a reasonable proof that God exists? And, if there is any such proof, is it reasonable to assume that the God of Christianity can be that God? If we are assured that there is no empirical proof for the existence of a God, why does the Christian continue to believe in one? Even more astoundingly, assuming there is a reasonable way to hold to a belief in a God without empirical evidence, how can Christians hold to the notion of his goodness in light of the evil he supposedly allows if he does exist?

Interestingly, in order for this debate to take place, both the atheist and the Christian must assume that God does exist, and that He is some kind of real being in the universe who acts deliberately and with power in the world. Both sides must acknowledge that God’s character, which is the basis for the motivation of his actions, can be scrutinized, criticized or defended in human terms. Without both sides making these assumptions first, there would be no on-going debate on the subject of God’s existence or his goodness.

The atheist desires to show that his viewpoint on the existence of a God without empirical evidence is valid.[2] The atheist perceives the world in terms of ‘physical’ reality alone, and then wonders how some other reality that the Christian perceives God to exist in might better account for God’s goodness. “Provided that you can demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume that your God exists, how can you possibly suggest that your God is good when all around us we experience and bear testimony to such horrific atrocities? Doesn’t the existence of these atrocities at least challenge the Christian concept of God’s ‘goodness’ and ‘righteousness’”?
At the outset, the atheist sets the parameters for understanding God by limiting his view of reality to a mere scientific, rational, materialistic physical world which can only be understood through empirical (i.e., physically tangible) means. After all, to him, that is the only real world! [3] The atheist believes that the Christian God can only be understood apart from the concept of faith. He will never be able to come to terms with the existence of the God of the Bible the way that the Christian does, because of his view of reality. In the end, it is perhaps not so much that the atheist doubts the goodness of God in this debate, though he undoubtedly does do that. That is secondary. All of the atheist’s doubts about God arise from his fundamental understanding of reality as “anti-spiritual.” It is this limiting view of ‘reality’ that forces the atheist to deny God’s very existence, and consequently, his supposed goodness.

But the Christian also struggles at a very foundational level in this debate. If he concludes that God is indeed real in an entirely ‘other’ sense than the mere physical reality that the atheist perceives, he must then believe in a God who is not only capable of preventing pain and suffering, but also is one who picks and chooses what He does or doesn’t do about it. While the Christian believes in the literal spiritual reality of the eternal, omnipotent God of the Bible, he is often incapable of debating effectively whether God remains ‘good’ within the perspective of this spiritual reality.

The Christian must understand, ultimately, that his belief in the goodness of God comes from his reliance on the fact that Scripture alone establishes his perception of God’s existence and goodness, and not his experience. Scripture is replete with examples of the apparent thriving of the wicked in their wickedness. “For I was envious of the boastful, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, nor are they plagued like other men” (Psalm 73:3-5). “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11). The prophet Habakkuk wrote of his confusion about the thriving of the wicked while the righteous God-fearer suffers: “You [God] are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold your tongue when the wicked devours?” (1:13). In Judges 6:13, Gideon complains with wonder that “...if the Lord is with us, why then has all this [hardship] befallen us?”

Furthermore, what serves as fuel for the atheist’s argument is the Christian conviction that even the very faith we rely on to believe in the God of the Bible is from God Himself.[4] Karl Barth wrote in On Christian Faith, that

Faith is a freedom; a permission. It is permitted to be, so -- that the believer in God’s Word may hold on to this Word in everything, in spite of all that contradicts it [in reality]. It is so: we never believe ‘on account of,’ never ‘because of’; we awaken to faith in spite of everything… when we believe, we believe in spite of God’s hiddenness. The hiddenness of God necessarily reminds us of our human limitation. We do not believe out of our personal reason and power.

Christians do not believe that God is good based upon an empirical proof that God necessarily demonstrates on a physical basis. We awaken to faith in spite of everything. We understand that whether or not God is good is not based upon the limited reality of our human comprehension of our particular experiences. Faith does not allow us to determine what ‘the goodness of God’ should look like. It allows us to believe His revelation about His intrinsic goodness in spite of what our experience shows it does look like. Our faith in God and in his goodness cannot be scientifically tested within the bounds of this physical reality because God exists outside of it. It cannot be validated scientifically or empirically, and so, while to the atheist, it is mere nonsense to attempt to answer the questions regarding the existence or the goodness of God through some means other than empiricism, the Christian cannot look to empiricism as establishing its proof.

Yet both the atheist and the Christian attempt to explain the same set of facts. Both can see that there are discrepancies in our experiences that make it difficult to account for God’s goodness, which is why, from the atheist’s perspective it is

…incumbent upon the theist to provide enough reason for his belief that God is the true explanation of the universe and morality. The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist’s explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position.[5]

The atheist does not offer a solution because he has none except his experience and human judgment. In the end, it is the atheist’s own materialistic view of the world that has made it impossible for him to believe in a God, let alone one that is good. And we are not blaming the atheist for making that assumption; he has no other alternative! The Christian insists that this physical reality alone cannot account for our understanding of the goodness of God.

Our desire to solve the problem of the goodness of God, therefore, is at a standstill unless we ask an entirely different question than “How does our perception of reality demonstrate that God is ultimately good?” Perhaps it might be better to arrive at some tenable solutions if we ask, “Are you so entirely dedicated to your materialistic view of reality that you will not allow for any other view of reality in considering the question of God’s existence and goodness?”

How Does Christianity Account for God’s Goodness?

Thomas Warren has written that “it is likely the case that no charge has been made with a greater frequency or with more telling force against the theism of Judeo-Christian (biblical) tradition than the complication of the existence of evil.”[6] Historically, Christian theologians have insisted that God has permitted evil in order to bring about “a greater good” than would have existed had evil not been present in the world. Thomas Aquinas argued on a broad scale that “the permitting of evil tends to the good of the universe.”[7]

The Christian theologian relies on the truthfulness of the Biblical account to inform him of God’s goodness and the existence of evil. The Biblical account suggests that a good God allowed evil and sin in the world in order to bring about an immense advantage to men, in that, God, through the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ, atoned for sin. This atonement for human sin is ultimately an expression of a better “good” than the “goodness” of a world that might have been without the presence of sin because the atonement for human sin is the ultimate expression of His goodness toward mankind. Philosophers have suggested that God gave “to the universe something nobler than anything that ever would have been among creatures except for this sinfulness,”[8] when He allowed sin to come into existence. Therefore, in light of this Biblical theological argument we cannot

…doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil, for He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good [in and of itself]; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, [on the whole] is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For He is not truly called Almighty if He cannot do whatever He pleases, or if the power of His Almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature whatsoever.[9]

It is the Biblical revelation of the person of God and the existence of evil that informs us of God’s goodness in light of that evil, and not merely our human perception of what God’s goodness should look like in the world. Faith is an absolutely necessary requirement to understanding how God can be good in this world; it is not an alternative to answering the difficult question of His goodness, it is the solution to answering the question. Often in speaking with people about the choices God made about the kind of world he supposedly created, they will inevitably ask “Couldn’t God have made a better choice by creating a hedonistic paradise that is free from pain and suffering? Isn’t a world free from pain and suffering better than this world? Because God did not create such a hedonistic paradise, is He not therefore lacking in the qualities of love, goodness and power?”

The remainder of this essay will attempt to address these questions. We recognize that the Christian theistic conception of God not only grants that there is evil in the world which God created, it believes that God has ordained its existence (using this word ordained in the normal dictionary usage of “commanded, ordered, established, or intended”) to demonstrate how good he is. Scripture teaches that not only has God created the whole earth and all that dwells within it, but that He remains good in spite of the choices He made to create it as He did, and to govern it as He does.

B. C. Johnson has written of this formidable and difficult problem, that “throughout history God has allowed numerous atrocities to occur. No one can have justifiable faith in the goodness of such a God.”[10] Yet there are literally millions of people who do have justifiable faith in the goodness of the God of Scripture Who has not only allowed evil atrocities to exist, but has in His sovereignty, decreed that they be so, without impacting their view of God’s goodness.

According to Biblical theology, an infinitely good God demonstrated His goodness in spite of His allowing evil to exist. Romans 8:28 says “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose...” Note, however, that this verse does not teach that all events in life are ‘good’ from the human perspective in spite of the fact that some of them may actually be evil! Nor does this verse teach that the good and evil events alike work together within God’s providence for the benefit of both the Christian and atheist. This verse however, does teach that as Christians, we know that God’s ordaining of all events, regardless of how they appear in this physical reality, work together for an ultimate good to those who love God. Christians must keep in mind this ultimate end in their understanding of God’s goodness. There appears to be nothing in Scripture to indicate that all things also work together for good to those who hate, or deny the existence of God.

Which Kinds of Choices Demonstrate Goodness?

Now, if we suppose for a moment that Scripture is true in terms of its declaration that God remains infinitely good while permitting the existence of evil, and apparently failing to remedy each instance of it from a human perspective, then does the existence of evil in the world demonstrate God’s goodness, or negate it? In other words, if God is truly good, would He allow evil to exist because He is good, or would He destroy evil because He is good? Furthermore, would there even be an atheist in existence to question the goodness of God, if God were intent upon eliminating every evil?[11] This of course only requires two things. First, the atheist must necessarily admit to the possibility of possessing a single evil thought in his mind for at least one second during his lifetime. We ask that if the atheist would acknowledge the possibility that for one second during his lifetime he has had a thought that was evil, or merely not good, is the fact that God allows him to exist, in spite of his evil thought, a demonstration of God’s goodness? Or would the fact that he did not destroy the atheist the second he had an evil thought demonstrate that God is evil?[12]

The question remains, which action on God’s part demonstrates His goodness? Is God good because He allows evil to exist? Or can His “goodness” only be demonstrated by His elimination of evil as the atheist suggests? Who determines the degree of evil that must be present before God eliminates it? This issue is especially difficult for the atheist. B.C. Johnson states that

A very large disaster could have been avoided simply by producing in Hitler a miraculous heart attack -- and no one would have known it was a miracle ... No one is requesting that God interfere all of the time. He should, however, intervene to prevent especially horrible disasters. Of course, the question arises: where does one draw the line? Well, certainly the line should be drawn somewhere this side of infants burning to death. To argue that we do not know where the line should be drawn is no excuse for failing to interfere in those instances that would be called clear cases of evil.[13]

The atheist must obviously perceive that premeditated murder is a relative ‘goodness,’ which leads to several serious problems. For instance, how does murdering Hitler demonstrate God’s goodness? Furthermore, how do we know that God didn’t interfere in Hitler’s actions, for example, by preventing every Jew from being exterminated? Which is the greater good, allowing only some Jews to live, or murdering Hitler?

Furthermore, how would anyone prove that it was God who gave Hitler a heart attack, were he to have died from one, rather than that his heart naturally stopped beating apart from any intervention by God?[14] Who decides what is ultimately “good”? Should it be the atheist? If so, on what grounds will he suggest that he knows best what is good or not good in every circumstance? He cannot claim eternal omniscience. Perhaps he would claim this knowledge on the grounds of his own goodness? Furthermore, it is intriguing that the atheist is not requesting that God interfere all the time, but just when the atheist says so. Perhaps the atheist imagines that the Christian God should be available to intervene at every beckoning and call that the atheist determines He should?

The atheist apparently knows as well that a line should be drawn in some cases that require the knowledge of “goodness”. Apparently unbeknownst to God, it is before the death of innocent children. But we wonder, if all children are innocent in the atheist’s perspective, wasn’t Hitler once an innocent child as well? How is it that the atheist can label as good the murdering of ‘innocent’ children if they turn out to be like Hitler, and still use God’s failure to rescue innocent children from burning as a demonstration that God is not good? Who knows whether or not one of those children that God allows to burn in a fire will not grow up to be the next Hitler?

Furthermore, on what basis does the atheist determine the ‘innocence’ of children? Certainly not on his understanding of what they will do thirty or forty years after their birth! For even the atheist would have to agree that though Hitler may have been innocent as a child, that innocence certainly left prior to his choosing to murder several million Jews! And if we compare the supposed ‘innocence’ of children to a perfectly holy and just God, what more can we say then of their innocence, than that it is only a relative one? Won’t the atheist agree that even humans allow for degrees of evil when they make “good” choices? Does not a general in the army prefer a slight wound accompanied by great victory, to no wound at all and no victory?

Certainly goodness is relative even in the light of evil choices. Winston Churchill allowed the Nazi bombing of the city of Coventry, England, during World War II, even though he knew ahead of time that the Nazis were preparing to do so and could have prevented the deaths of ‘innocent’ people. Through various spy networks and the obtaining of a Nazi book of codes, Churchill had learned of the Nazi plan to destroy the non-military site of Coventry. Yet he reasoned that if he were to evacuate all of the citizens from Coventry prior to the bombing, (thereby sparing the loss of innocent life), the Nazis would have known the British had broken their secret codes, thereby endangering the future good that would come from being able to determine the war plans of the Nazis more thoroughly, and gain the ultimate victory in the war. The difficult choice was to allow some innocent people to die at Coventry for the greater good of eventually defeating the Nazis once and for all. Did Churchill make a “good” choice? Or would it have been better to save Coventry, yet be defeated by the Nazis in World War II? Perhaps that is a something only God can determine.

The Problem of the Value of Pleasure and Pain


The atheist often supposes that if God is ultimately ‘good’, then He could have demonstrated that goodness more effectively through the creation of a hedonistic-like paradise where only pleasure or pleasant consequences exist. The question of whether human beings[15] might always be capable of only choosing the good in a paradise of pleasure is virtually incapable of being determined in light of our current perspectives of reality. The Christian Biblical perspective is that a perfectly good God allows evil to exist while He Himself remains good. Christians admit that evil is endemic to the world and to those of us who live here because of the presence of sin. The atheist’s argument that all that God needed to do to have made a better choice when He created was to change the environment to one that is hedonistic, is essentially flawed if it does not take into consideration how our present world is affected by sin. For we see that even in our world that now exists, pleasure does not always lead to good. In fact the physical pleasures that we now experience can just as easily lead human beings to jealously, envy, addiction and hatred as they can lead to good, (assuming of course that the atheist would agree that these previous things are not good). I believe it can be demonstrated that injecting heroin into one’s veins, for example, is one of the most pleasurable sensations that humans can experience in the flesh. Yet there are limits to the goodness of these pleasurable sensations. For a little too much heroin can lead to death. And unless the atheist is willing to agree that death is a possible ‘good’ that results from living in a hedonistic paradise of pleasure, we cannot say that the presence of that pleasurable environment alone guarantees ‘good’ results, if human beings, as they now are, were to live there.

Furthermore, we could even question whether we could experience more pleasure in a ‘hedonistic’ world than we are capable of experiencing in the world in which we now live. More importantly, has anyone experienced not only every possible pleasure to its fullest extent in this world, but every possible extent and avenue of every pleasure, in the human body we have in this world that contains evil? It is utter speculation on the part of the atheist to assume that we could experience more pleasure than we are currently able to experience, and then, without negative (evil) consequences, while remaining the human beings that we now are.[16] We grant the atheist his case that he is not necessarily arguing for a world where no pain exists, but perhaps only for a world where less of it exists. B.C. Johnson, for example, does not necessarily require a completely hedonistic world where no suffering of any kind at all might exist, as the only possible alternative to this one. “[The atheist] need only claim that there is suffering which is in excess of that needed for the production of various virtues (which virtues, according to the theist, produce courage, sympathy, etc).”[17] It is interesting isn’t it, that the atheist suggests that suffering might bring virtue to humanity? One would gather by his arguments that suffering would not be considered a relative good, but rather something that God in his goodness would necessarily remedy if indeed he were good. Huston Smith has written that Hinduism, for example, accepts the existence of pain in reality “when it has a purpose, as a person welcomes the return of life and feeling, even painful feeling, to a frozen arm.”[18] Yet, is it not with difficulty that anyone accepts the notion of “purposeless pain”? What function would useless pain have in the physical world? Apparently even the atheist doubts the possibility of the existence of purposeless pain when he suggests that some suffering might be necessary to produce virtue.

Now, we need not look far to see that at least certain kinds of pain do serve a good purpose in this world. Scientists have explained that lepers experience the mangling and deterioration of their flesh because they are no longer able to sense pain in the extremities of their bodies. Because they cannot feel the pain which would normally caution them to be attentive to their own actions, lepers cannot determine whether or not they are incurring any detriment to their flesh. Pain in ones extremities protects the person from incurring more damage to them.

Even the atheist can easily see that pain in the world in which we now exist, is necessary, and that it actually serves a ‘good’ purpose in our world. And even though we agree with the atheist that pain in certain excesses is most often considered to be evil and appears to be of no use to us in this world, God had a purpose and use for it in the world which He created. Does our world not function better in some degrees because of the existence of pain in it?

Though it remains difficult to assimilate the excesses of pain and evil which appear in this world, the Bible teaches further that God uses physical pain and suffering to chastise His own “for their own good,” (rather than plant them into an imaginary world of hedonism and pleasure which is free from pain). King David wrote, “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.... I know, oh Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me (Psalm 119:71, 75, emphasis added). Charles Haddon Spurgeon, London’s greatest preacher, was afflicted with gout for most of his adult life. His response to that affliction demonstrates a Christian conviction that in spite of pain and suffering, God uses it toward our ultimate good.

The result of [being in the melting pot of pain] is that we arrive at a true valuation of things [and] we are poured out into a new and better fashion. And, oh, we may almost wish for the melting-pot if we may but get rid of the dross, if we may be but pure, if we may but be fashioned more completely like our Lord.[19]

The response of the greatest apostle in the New Testament to God’s goodness and the struggle he had as God formed him towards the pattern of Christ through pain and suffering, is clearly laid out for us in 2 Corinthians 12:9b, 10. “Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

Does God Demonstrate the Greatest Good by Allowing the Greatest Evil?


Is it possible that in our desire to answer these difficult questions regarding the place of good and evil in this world that we have failed to ask the most important question of all: Could God have demonstrated the greatest good by allowing the greatest evil? Our tendency to question whether God should have made a world other than He did is worth serious reconsideration. After all, though it is fun to speculate, this is the world we live in.[20] We all experience both good and evil here, some of us to a greater or lesser degree than others. Yet if God did not create this world with the intention of it being a hedonistic paradise, but rather created it to be, as one man suggests, a “scene of history in which human personality may be formed toward the pattern of Christ,” how shall we go about reaching that end while we live in a world that is evil?

First, the Christian theist must acknowledge his own responsibility for his own evil, and cannot fault the world’s Creator for it because he believes that Scripture is true when it says that God is perfect. The Westminster Confession of Faith has stated the Biblical truth that “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.....” (WCF 3:1). But what Christians often fail to understand is that in His perfection there exists a mysterious element that defies human comprehension. God being perfect does not mean that his choices are perfectly understandable. From our finite perceptions of reality, we humans are too willing to challenge the concept of whether God is entirely good. We critique His wondrous ways, faulting Him for what appears to us to be haphazard carelessness in His creation, without any trepidation. We so arrogantly dispute His power and ability by suggesting that He could have done it better ....“If only”. We see murder, rape, greed, and death all around us, and do not hesitate to shake our fists in the air and say, “Why have You allowed this!” Why do we remain so thoroughly blind to the extent of His goodness in light of our own evil? Would any of us be alive for a second longer if God were to eliminate all evil because of His goodness?

This issue is at the heart of the mystery of the Gospel: This God Who is good, who created human beings with a huge propensity toward evil, chose the greatest good for them, by experiencing the greatest evil for them. This God, in demonstrating His goodness, by His grace alone, saves believing men from their evil rather than destroying them for it. In doing this, God demonstrated for those who believe, that though they are worthy of nothing more than to pay for their own wickedness with their own lives, He paid the price for their evil for them with the life of His only begotten perfect Son.

Perhaps rather than challenging God’s goodness, we might become inclined to see how it can be, that Scripture explains to us that while God is free from any evil in and of Himself, and would remain holy and just even if He held us accountable for each of our sins, He has chosen rather to demonstrate His goodness toward mankind in that “…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them…” (2 Corinthians 5:19). He chose the greater good of allowing the world to become what it is, so that we could experience the greatest demonstration of His goodness toward us who are evil. And that greatest good was to reconcile wicked sinners to Himself, not at the cost of our lives, but at the cost of Christ’s life.

This mystery is the gospel that defies human comprehension. The mystery lies in the fact that God’s goodness is demonstrated to us through the explanation in Scripture that instead of a perfectly holy God obliterating humanity because of its sin, God did the most inhumanly incomprehensible thing to remedy that situation. This remedy is a mystery precisely because His solution is, at the same time, a horrible demonstration of the extent our own evil and an incomprehensible demonstration of His goodness toward us. Even the goodness of God’s solution for our wickedness is incomprehensible in that God poured out His wrath against evil upon His own Son, Who was the only Person to have ever existed who was free from any evil whatsoever, so that he wouldn’t pour it out on us!

I urge the reader to consider 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. The gospel message of God pouring out His wrath upon His own Son is a message that is absolutely foolish to those who are perishing in their unbelief! (1 Corinthians 1:18). Yet that very same message has the power to save those who believe it. God, in His mysterious wisdom, has made what the world believes to be true about ‘goodness’ foolish. The gospel is foolish because the world can never understand God’s goodness unless it understands God through faith and the wisdom of the cross of Christ. In fact, not only can the world not know God through its own kind of wisdom, it was pleasing to God to save those who believe the very same message that the rest of the world rejects as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Scripture records that, “it pleased the LORD to bruise Him [Christ]; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the travail of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:10-11)”. That message of forgiveness of sin by the pouring out of God’s holy wrath against His perfect sinless Son is a message that cannot be understood apart from faith.

The very idea of God putting His own sinless Son on a cross to pay the penalty of sin for every person who would ever believe that message is impossible for the human mind to accept as logical or rational. The unbelieving world asks, “How can that message demonstrate God’s goodness, when, for all intents and purposes, that message describes one of the most horrific absurdities capable of being conceived?” And even to begin to grasp that message in faith, requires of the believer that he acknowledge that the greatest good could only come about through what appears to us to be nothing short of an atrocity. God’s gracious forgiveness speaks volumes not only of our inability to save ourselves, but begs the question: “What if God demonstrated the supremacy of his goodness by allowing the greatest evil to occur?”


[i] B.C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, (Amherst: New York), 1983, 99-100.
[ii] On what basis does the atheist come to the conclusion that there is no spiritual reality? On what basis does he come to the conclusion that empiricism is the only valid source for determining all that is real?
[iii] One cannot prove what does not exist through any means, empirical (see, hear, touch, taste, smell) or otherwise. Using empirical means as a scientific proof can only prove what does exist. If atheism is certain that God does not exist, there would be no empirical proofs available to prove it. So why make any effort to do the impossible?
[iv] This short paper cannot consider all of the implications about faith. We are only considering here that it does not arise within ourselves.
[v] The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 12.
[vi] Thomas B. Warren, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1972), vii; quoted in The Blue Banner, vol. 8, Issue 11-12, First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, Dallas, Texas, 1999, 7.
[vii] John A. Mourant, Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, sv. “The Best of all Possible Worlds,” Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1954), 384.
[viii] Leibniz, Readings, 384
[ix] St. Augustine, Readings, s.v. “Evil as Privation of the Good”, 391. The reference is to the Apostle’s Creed, which begins with the words, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth....”
[x] Handbook, 106.
[xi] A friend of mine made a good point here. We are not suggesting that questioning God’s goodness is an evil in and of itself. Nor are we suggesting that having a single evil thought makes the whole person evil. What we are suggesting however, is that all humans have at times thoughts that are essentially evil, and we are assuming that evil thoughts arise from an innate evilness. That God does not destroy us for this innate evil is a good thing.
[xii] Perhaps at this juncture, the atheist might consider it a ‘good’ compromise if God were to only erase the evil thought that came to the mind of the atheist the second that he had it, rather than eliminate the atheist altogether.
[xiii] Handbook, 104.
[xiv] It is curious that the atheist suddenly and conveniently argues for a God produced miracle in his belief system. We wonder if a miracle certainly would be the atheist’s contention were he to discover that had God actually produced a heart attack in Hitler.
[xv] By this we mean human beings as they now are. Neither the Christian nor the atheist can speak reasonably or explain what might be involved in speaking of some other kind of human being that exists in a different kind of world. In this imaginary utopia of pleasure, where the divinity apparently demonstrates His love and goodness by providing nothing but pleasure to human beings, yet no evil consequences to any of those pleasures whatsoever, do humans have the same bodies they have now? Are they still sinful? Would all other things in the world be equal? How would they need to be different to live in that world and experience more pleasure?
[xvi] It might be reasonable to ask here whether or not the evil consequences can be deemed good in that they might restrain the participant from a complete abandonment to utter hedonism to the neglect of other necessary considerations in life.
[xvii] Handbook, 102-103.
[xviii] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 22.
[xix] Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House, 1993), 266.
[xx] On what basis does the atheist make the assumption that a ‘safe and peaceful world’ is a better world than this one? Certainly it is not on the basis of his omniscience. On what basis does the atheist make the assumption that he knows what would make this world a better world? If this is the only world he has experienced, how could he know?