Is God Really Just?

(Here are some philosophical ramblings of mine that may or may not be fully biblically sound. I'm not speaking on behalf of orthodox theology. I'm only sharing my own reasoning that probably is flawed at some point or another. So, read at your own risk!)

Where does morality come from? Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? I have heard it said by atheists that morality cannot be from God but must stem from mankind's nature. They derive this idea by trying to answer the previous question and concluding that: (a) we intuitively know that God theoretically could command something immoral, like murder; and (b) that God has not always commanded what is moral, citing biblical approval of genocide and slavery and so on. The atheists, however, are using poor, circular reasoning. They assume that man's intuitive concept of morality is sound and an absolute measure of morality; then they hold God to that standard, then they arrogantly say that the God of the Bible is not always moral; and then they—to complete the circle—say that morality cannot come from God but must stem from mankind. Do you see the circularity of it? Instead, one needs to consider the opposite, humbling possibility that God's understanding of morality is sound and an absolute measure of morality and see where that leads you. It will lead you to understand that God commands what is moral because of His own intrinsic, holy nature.

Morality, like with logic, is a part of who God is by His very definition. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He is who He is (Ex. 3:14). He cannot be tempted by sin, and He does not tempt people to sin (James 1:13). God just is the way He is and thus He cannot be immoral and He cannot command something that is immoral. He cannot be truly illogical. He cannot create a rock that is “too heavy for Him to lift,” because that is intrinsically illogical and not a part of God's reality. God can do anything but deny His very nature; creating such a rock would be for God to deny Himself. Theoretically, perhaps, He has the raw power to make an immovable object, but if He did make it He would no longer be the God who can do anything. He would be ending His Godhood, essentially. God cannot change in His eternal nature (Mal. 3:6).

When God commands something, we know that it must be consistent with morality, since morality is a part of His nature. I'm choosing my words carefully. I did not say that it was “moral” for a reason to be explained in a minute. All that was created by God was good and consistent with His moral and logical nature, as well. God would not make a lawlessly chaotic universe, for example. He made a universe governed by precise laws. God would not make a universe that strongly deceives people, but rather He has made a universe that speaks truth of Himself (Rom. 1:20). The whole universe is a sort of finite painting that indirectly tells us about the infinite Lord God.

How then did sin and pain and suffering enter in, since that is not consistent with God's moral nature? Sin and selfishness entered in because of free will. Free will, I would say, is the ability to change apart from God's input or preservation—essentially to choose to remake yourself. The problems in the world are because of a lack of true, heart knowledge of God and a personal relationship with Him. All of the real problems in the universe are not because God created them, but because of selfish and godless behavior that resulted from finite “free will”. One way to look at it is that our mere finiteness made us flawed and susceptible to pursuing folly. This limited nature led Adam and Eve to turn from God and to sin against Him. However, that does not mean that Adam and Eve were somehow blameless and that God deserves the blame! Finiteness is not evil. It is just not pure perfection. Only God is that perfect.

Now, humans were made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This means, among other things, that we each have a spirit that has a measure of communication with God. Thus we have a conscience that roughly understands morality. This understanding is limited, however, and severely marred by the Fall of Adam and Eve. Partly because we are finite, but mostly because we are sinful, we do not naturally understand the greatness of God and the severity of our sin. Sin against an infinite and perfect God is ugly, horrible, and eternally damning. We don't really fully grasp that last point. The idea of eternal judgment isn't easy to understand or to appreciate, but it is consistent with God's holy and moral nature. Every sin must be punished. Every sin against God is an infinite injustice in that the Person being wronged is infinite.

Perfect judgment and punishment is something that only God can do. Governments can only do so much to try to bring justice in the world, and humans are only so good at determining what punishment is fair and just. Wronged individuals are too prone to emotional bias and for that reason, at the least, individuals are forbidden from personal vengeance. It was for that reason that God indicated that civil government should be set up after the Great Flood (Gen. 9:5-6). He understood that relatively impartial people were needed to carry out justice. Individuals are called to love others, not to seek judgment.

God is love. Because everyone deserves eternal punishment, every minute on earth is a gift and mercy of God. In general, God shows mercy and a type of love towards all people. All people are blessed with mercy from God. The atheist, however, sees things in reverse, and wrongly assumes that people are inherently good and deserve life and that death and pain are great evils in the world that a truly loving God would never allow. Such is the twisted and polluted thinking of fallen mankind who is unable to fathom the pure justice of God. People aren't inherently godly; they are inherently at enmity with God and rebels against His Kingship.

Back to morality. Morality is not primarily an external thing from God's viewpoint. It is an internal heart issue that has external manifestations (Matt. 15:18-19). Some action is not necessarily moral or immoral by itself, disconnected from the motives of the heart. Actions are expressions of the heart, but totally different heart desires can produce identical actions. Therefore, morality can never be defined purely in terms of actions or externals. Physically keeping the commandments of God is not the heart of morality. God's commandments are intended to show us actions or restraint that typically follows morality within the heart. That is why the Ten Commandments are much deeper than just the external actions involved; they were always intended to be understood as encompassing both action and desire. Murder, for instance, isn't about not killing. Killing isn't always wrong. Murder is about not hating fellow human beings. It's a heart thing. Thus, I said earlier that God's commandments are consistent with morality, but not necessarily “moral” by themselves. Morality stems from will and desire and personhood, not external actions viewed in isolation apart from the heart. Perfection before God requires a loving relationship with Him.

Now that we've laid the basic foundation of morality, we can begin to address some of the hard passages in Scripture where it seems at first blush that God is not consistent with His own moral nature. What about slavery? What about stoning of rebellious children? What about the merciless conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament? What about the children who were killed by a bear after making fun of the prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Are these actions consistent with God's moral nature, or what we think His morality should be? Will I really defend God in these instances? Absolutely. We just need to understand the heart of God's actions; for, after all, that's where morality is really at.

The bottom line really is this, though: if the Creator is all-worthy and people are only deserving of judgment, why can't God do with any of us just as He pleases? That really quickly gives a minimal answer to almost any question pertaining to the morality of God, even if it doesn’t satisfy our finite understanding of justice. Ultimately, everyone deserves nothing good from God. We are all guilty. We are all sinners in need of His mercy. This takes lots of humility to embrace, but logically there is nothing wrong with it.

The Conquest of Canaan

Probably no bigger accusation has been leveled against God's morality than the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites and God's decree to completely remove every person, young and old, from the land (Deut. 3:6; 7:2; 12:2; 20:17). This sounds heartless. Most atheists fail to recognize a few basic facts, though. First, natural disasters are completely within God's control and many of them also indiscriminately kill people. What method God uses to kill people isn't really important to the question of morality. We might as well ask, “Why does God allow a natural disaster?” There's practically no difference according to the Bible. Second, God was patient with the Amorites and the other people of the land according to Gen. 15:16. God was slow to anger and giving them many years to change in their ways. Third, if the people of the land were not destroyed then they would have continued on greatly sinning and storing up for themselves wrath against the Day of Judgment (cf. Rom. 2:5). So, from that perspective, perhaps it was a minor mercy that God had them destroyed.

For me, the more challenging question is why would God have humans kill children and women? That is disturbing and hard for me to come to terms with. If I were one of the Israelites, I would have found that very hard to do, I think. Regardless of why, we must keep in mind that God gave the command to destroy the people of the land. This was not a faint voice in Moses' ear where he felt God was telling them to do this. Moses was a prophet who spoke directly with God. God gave him powerful revelations and instructions that he could not mistake or question. It was upon that basis alone that the Israelites could be justified in their merciless conquest of the land of Canaan. No one ever can be justified to destroy all people in a land that is being conquered. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were absolutely and tragically an evil injustice.

Here are some other things to keep in mind. God also seemingly was close to destroying the Israelites (Ex. 32:10-13)! Moses interceded on their behalf and God relented of His judgment. God has consistently destroyed people sovereignly throughout history by natural disasters and wars and other sad plights that seem indiscriminate. Also, God was not racist. Rahab was a woman of Jericho who repented and was saved (Josh. 2:1; 6:17). 'Race' had nothing to do with the decision to destroy them. God also commanded that the people of Israel be fair to the strangers in their land (Deu. 14:29; Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22). This included people of other races.

Was God unjust in this conquest? I think when you consider all these things together, you can begin to understand—though it is admittedly difficult—how God could seemingly be so unmerciful in this invasion of Canaan, and yet still be a God of mercy and morality. He is always the One who has the right to decide the beginning and ending of life, and He is always in control of life and death. There are no true accidents in God’s economy.

Slavery

Probably the second biggest accusation against God is that He condoned the evil practice of slavery. It is only an accusation. There are several points to consider when addressing this topic: (1) God may have allowed some slavery because of the hardness of men’s hearts (cf. Mark 10:4-6) but not fully approved of it; (2) slavery was better than death for the people being conquered; (3) slavery does not need to be cruel punishment, and God called for kind treatment of slaves (Ex. 21:26; 22:21; Lev. 25:43, 46; 19:18; Deu. 21:13-14), so not all slavery is necessarily harsh and a great evil; and (4) there are different kinds of slavery and some forms of slavery still continue today, like indebtedness. Point (4) is especially interesting. Slavery was a way that people could pay off debts (Lev. 25:39; Ex. 22:3). If you received good treatment, this option of repaying a debt would not necessarily be unthinkable. The real evil of slavery is the mistreatment of slaves. God never intended slaves to be mistreated. It was because of the sinfulness and hardness of hearts that slaves were abused.

Point (1) is also interesting. Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament, but only as a way to mitigate the negative consequences of stubborn and hard-hearted people (Mark 10:4-6). The same goes for the establishment of a monarchy in Israel. God allowed it even though it was not what He wanted (1 Sam. 8:6-7; 10:19; 12:19). It is possible that some instances of slavery were allowed for the same reason. Slavery of foreign peoples captured in war was a practice that preceded the Mosaic Law, and use of servants seems to have been well established by Moses' time, so it is quite possible that the laws concerning foreign slaves were established to mitigate the problems of slavery not to truly condone its practice in full.

All in all, slavery would not be a terrible practice if it were used rightly and with kindness in mind. Here are some provisions in the law that mitigated the harshness of slavery:

• Slavery was never intended to be permanent for Jews (Lev. 25:40); Hebrew servants could only be kept for six years (Deu. 15:12). Also, slaves were normally released at the year of Jubilee, regardless of the amount of debt owed.
• Even foreign slaves would go free if they were badly abused (Ex. 21:26-27), and some believe that they could also have their freedom purchased.
• Slaves were to rest from work like everyone else on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10).
• Anyone found selling Hebrews was to be put to death (Deu. 24:7)!
• All slaves were to enjoy feasts (Deu. 16:14; 12:18).

There were two types of servants, then, distinguished in the Law of Moses: foreign slaves and Hebrew servants. The Hebrew servants had more protection in the Law and were expected to be kept for no more than six full years. They were not to be treated harshly or with rigor. I doubt anyone would seriously have a problem with this “slavery,” since it was based mostly on the concept of repayment of debts. The second kind of slavery was of foreigners, and the Law only offered minimal protection of them.

However, I believe this second type of slavery was primarily cultural and only allowed due to the hardness of men’s hearts as mentioned earlier. When it came to purchasing foreign slaves, I see no clear indication that God approved of the practice. I can’t prove this view; but, regardless, it is clear that God did not intend even for foreign slaves to be treated harshly. God called the Jews to love even the foreigners in the land (Deu. 10:19; Lev. 19:34), and so God obviously did not desire the Jews to be unfair and unkind to the foreign slaves. (I should also note that, from a spiritual perspective, foreigners were blessed to be slaves of God’s chosen people, since they were privileged to hear of the true God and come to faith in Him. Though that does not make it a loving practice, it may help us understand how God allowed this practice and yet was still a loving God. Anyone believing in Jehovah and willing to adopt the Mosiac Law was to be considered as a native-born Jew, by the way [cf. Ex. 12:48].)

In modern times, two problems with slavery happened: slaves in many cases were taken unjustly by greed from their homelands which had nothing to do with God’s direction or purpose, and slaves were sometimes grossly and evilly mistreated. The laws did not adequately protect slaves. If these problems had never happened, we likely wouldn't view slavery as such an evil today. What happened in America was emphatically wrong, I believe. Slavery, as permitted in the Old Testament, was different and intended to be more humane and reasonable.

Stoning of Rebellious Children

The case of stoning a rebellious son (Deu. 21:18-21) is probably the most disturbing part of the Law for many people. How is that moral? Again, people who attack the Bible miss some important points. The son apparently needed to be a drunk and a glutton (Deu. 21:20 b). This typically would indicate an older child. Certainly a young child is not in view. By the looks of it, the son needed to be a complete bum who had a perpetual habit of laziness and wastefulness and disobedience to both mother and father. This isn't a son who is just obstinate or lazy. It's a number of factors that would have been quite unusual. In fact, there is no record of this law ever being carried out.

The stoning would happen only at the initiation of the parents (Deu. 21:19). What kind of parents would do that? It would be an admission of failure on their parts. It would take parents who had completely lost control over their son and felt their child was a hopeless case. Since the parents were the ones who brought the accusation, this means that their conscience would need to be quite clear. This law put the parents, who would naturally have the most love for the son, completely in the driver's seat, which would minimize the usage of this law and would protect the child from false accusations.

We may still be struck by the apparent brutality of this law. At first glance, that may appear to be the case, but not when we consider this more closely. This law was for relatively worthless sons—both to society and the parents—who were out of control. This law was for consistently “stubborn and rebellious” sons who violated the Fifth Commandment over and over again. They were sons who knew that they were subject to death by the law. There were various problems with this type of son: drunkenness, stubbornness, gluttony, and rebelliousness to both parents. Such a person would not be easily changed, nor would they be likely productive members of society (for what that's worth). What this law shows us is the gravity of these sins. Disobedience to parents is a major sin in God's Book. Though we may not fully appreciate the seriousness of these sins, that does not make God immoral in His judgment. It just makes us poor judges of justice and God's perfect standards.

Lastly, the law pertained to sons. Perhaps the law could be applied to daughters, but I suspect not. It was intended for sons. The Bible probably would have used the word child (Hebrew, “valid”) instead of son (Hebrew, “ben”) if this law was to be used for sons or daughters. This point is important since young children and girls are generally treated with greater care and mercy. Young men are considered more independent. So, daughters were protected from this law, I believe.

The Death of the Children who Mocked the Prophet

One of the strange incidents in the OT is the case of two bears that mauled the children who repeatedly mocked the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24). It was the Lord who judged the children. So, how was God right to do this? There are a number of instances where God seems to have judged people more harshly than we would have expected, such as the case of Uzzah who tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling (2 Sam. 6:6-7). These cases show us that God is in control of life and death. He has a right to decide who lives and who dies and when that happens. For every one of us, He is in control of the events in our lives. Death isn't always a judgment for specific sins. Probably normally death is not because of specific sin. So, which seems harsher: to kill someone because of no specific sin, or to kill someone because of specific sin? These difficult instances of God's judgment totally miss the point that all sin deserves to be judged by God. It totally misses the point that most death is not the result of specific sin and yet is still a general judgment from God.

God has the right to make an example out of people. In the instance of Uzzah, I believe that is what God did. Uzzah did not deserve death more than most people, but God wanted to make an example of him. In the case of the children who mocked the prophet, we must understand that the children were most likely aware that Elisha was a prophet of God. They were in effect defying God and blaspheming Him by knowingly mocking His faithful servant—repeatedly. Once again, I believe that God was making an example of these children and judging their godless parents, but not because they were necessarily worse sinners than many other people.

When it is all said and done, we can't say that God was immoral for killing these kids, since He is the One who always takes everyone from this life. If anything, we can see purpose in this otherwise random death of children, which can help us deal with our own instances of death. God has a purpose in everything. He is working everything out for His glory, since He is the only One who deserves it. But, for those whom He loves, everything also works for our good and our eventual happiness in Him. I would much rather hope in a higher purpose in so-called random tragedy than just think it was a pointless, fluke of nature. Not all natural disaster is judgment from God, by the way. God purposes are intricate and often beyond our understanding (Isa. 55:9). The young children who died in the tsunami recently did not deserve to die, in legal and civil terms. Generally, they did not commit crimes worthy of capital punishment. However, God still took them for some reason. Jesus taught, I believe, that we should not think of people as worse sinners just because some disaster befalls them (Luke 13:2-5). God's judgment is ultimately upon all mankind, even the morally upright and outstanding citizens in appearance. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.