Divine Justice Issues (XI)

If one searches the writings of those who think that the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants is unjust, he will read such statements as these;

"And in the ultimate injustice, God punishes everyone for someone else's sin, and then saves them all by killing an innocent victim."  

However, this is begging the question. It is also, as we will see, against what the bible teaches. It teaches that God is just and yet he has constituted the human race in such a manner that Adam is appointed by God as the head and representative of the race and ordained that his disobedience or obedience be put to the account of his descendants. We also see numerous examples in the old testament where descendants were liable for the errors of their ancestors, though not to the degree of Adam's sin upon his descendants. Concerning that affirmation we will begin first with what the old testament demonstrates to us about this principle.

Old Testament Examples

God punishes children for things that their fathers or ancestors did. 

"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 20:5) 

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Deut. 5: 9) 

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 34: 7) 

"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name." (Jer. 32: 18) 

On the other hand, we have these scriptures that seem to directly contradict the above verses. The following texts seem to say that God doesn't punish people for the actions of others. 

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16) 

"But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (II Kings 14: 6; II Chron. 25: 4) 

"In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity." (Jer. 31: 29-30)

"The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, "What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge'? "As I live," says the Lord God, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die." (Eze. 18: 1-4 nkjv) 

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Eze. 18: 20)

A superficial reading of these passages would force us to say that there is a contradiction in the bible. One set of verses say that the children suffer adverse consequences for the iniquity of their fathers and the other set says that they do not. So, how do we reconcile these texts?

First, let me call attention to the words highlighted in red above and the words "no more" from the text in Jeremiah. Those words tell us that at one time it was accurately said that the children suffer for the iniquity of their fathers but that some time in the future it would not be said, or would no longer be true. I pointed this out to my debate opponents when we debated original sin and I don't recall that they ever responded to the argument. It seems clear to me that by "those days" reference is to the days when Israel is fully enjoying the blessings of the new covenant, which for individuals is going on now in the church age to some extent, and yet in a greater corporate way when the new heavens and earth are created, a time when there will be "no more curse." (Rev. 22: 3) The context of that chapter shows this to be the case. That age will see the promise completely fulfilled and no one will be suffering the adverse consequences of an ancestor's sins or be held responsible for them. 

Also, in some of the verses above it is the death penalty that is the focus. In all the passages above, with the exception of the Jeremiah passage and the passage from Ezekiel chapter eighteen, I have highlighted the words in red that demonstrate this fact. No child will be put to death for the sin of a father. But, that does not mean that they will no longer be subject to other curses or responsibility for a father's iniquity. An example is seen in God's cursing of the son of Ham for the sin of Ham.

"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Gen. 9: 21-25)

Notice the word "cursed." Notice that God did not curse Ham alone for his sin, but cursed his son Canaan. But, as we have seen, there is a day coming when there will be "no more curse," and when the children will no longer he held responsible for the sin of their ancestors. That day has not yet come, although many bible commentators think differently. That day will come when Christ returns and brings in a new age of new heavens and earth, as we have seen from Jeremiah chapter thirty one. Notice this text:

"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matt. 23: 35 nkjv)

Obviously, the promise that children will no longer suffer the consequences or liability for a father's iniquity had not yet been annulled or abrogated in the time of Christ for here he affirms that the nation Israel will suffer punishment for the sins of their fathers, going all the way back to the murder of Abel. Israel in the time of Christ would suffer vengeance for having killed Abel? Yes, and therefore we see how the promise of "no more" from Jeremiah chapter thirty one had not yet come in the time of Christ. 

So, the promise that the children will "no more" be adversely affected or responsible for the sins of their fathers is not yet fully realized. That is one point of rebuttal in attempting to reconcile the texts above. The next point is probably more forceful however.

In the first set of texts above we see that it is God, and God alone, who curses the children for the sins of their fathers. In the second set of texts, God is forbidding the nation of Israel, or its courts, to act as God in this cursing and charging of responsibility. Therefore, what is forbidden is not what God does, but what the people through their government may be permitted to do. Further, as stated, the chief thing forbidden is the death penalty. No child is to be put to death in Israel by the leadership of Israel for a sin of a father. The prohibitions of these texts do not apply to God. God retains his prerogative to say that children will bear the adverse consequences or liability for the sins of their fathers. Many commentators fail to see this. Even I failed to see it for many years until I saw the light.

Not only Christ, but the Jews still recognized the principle that God may, if he so chooses, cause children to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers, for we read where they exclaimed, in voting to have Christ crucified, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt. 27: 25 nkjv)

So, just because God tells Israel that they cannot put to death a person for the sins of their fathers, that does not mean that he cannot do so. In fact, we have examples of where he did in fact do this. Let us call attention to the case of David's sin of adultery and in the death of Bathsheba's husband. We also read this witness from Samuel the prophet:

"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die...And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick...on the seventh day, that the child died." (II Sam. 12: 14-18) 

Here the child died because of the sin of David. In spite of what this text says, many will have cognitive dissonance over the fact and some will try to explain away what the text obviously says. Some will say that children may suffer the consequences of a father's sinful behavior but not be held responsible for it, like when a father is an alcoholic and brings evils upon his family because of it, and yet the children are not responsible for it. It is true that children suffer evil consequences for the sins of their parents, but these verses go much farther than that. In the above text the child is killed by the Lord for the sin of David. Many people will never accept that God had a just right to do such a thing. Samuel also wrote this about the matter of David's sin:

"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." (II Sam. 12: 9-10) 

So, God also said he would see to it that the sword would never depart from his "house," meaning from his descendants. 

"If you fail to follow all of God's commandments, God will curse your children. If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day...Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." (Deut. 23: 2) 

Again, God has this prerogative and actually exercises it when it pleases him. We saw that this was true with regard to God cursing Canaan, the son, for the sin of his father Ham. Here are some other examples.

"Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Deut. 28: 15-18) 

That seems pretty clear. So, we cannot pit the verses that say Israel should not punish children for the sins of their fathers against others that say that God does that very thing. It is the job of the bible apologist to show how both sets of scriptures are true and not just to accept what one set says and disregard the others, as if one set cancels out the other set. 

"And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the Lord our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Jer. 16: 10-11) 

Now, many will think that God is being unjust to do these things. But, God is just and what he is doing is not unjust. But, we will elaborate on that later in this section. God says that he pronounced evil against the children for the sins of their fathers. 

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD." (Isa. 14:21-22) 

Notice that God does not call upon Israel to do the killing nor to judge who was to be killed for the sins of fathers, for this he forbids. Yet, he does not relinquish that right for himself.

Notice one other example from the old testament. 

"In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." (1 Sam. 3: 12-13)

This text reminds me of the words of Christ to many of the Jews in his day who rejected him.

"In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs." (Luke 11: 48 nkjv)

It may be therefore a case where the Lord in many cases visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children when the children approve of those iniquitous deeds. That would not be true in all cases, as we have seen, because in cases like David's sins, his child was killed by the Lord before the child was old enough to acquiesce  to the sins of David.

Some think that children only inadvertently suffer the consequences of the sins of their parents as we have previously stated. However, if one looks at the texts above, it is obvious that it is God in his providence who causes those consequences to occur. He "visits" the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. He curses those children.

In the next chapter we will look into what the bible says about original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Following that we will have some things to say about the debate over whether this imputation is mediate or immediate.

Divine Justice Issues (X)

In the previous chapters we first gave an introduction to the issue of divine justice and righteousness and then answered two of the dozen questions to be addressed relative to it. We have given our answer to these two questions:

1. The justice of God and the problem of evil was the topic of debate in the Book of Job. Do the innocent ever suffer evil at the hand of God? Why does God allow evil things to occur?

3. The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing foreknowledge and predestination (or determinism). If all my choices and deeds are the result of God's will, then how can I be fairly or justly condemned for doing what I could not help doing (what he made me to do)? Is it just for God not to stop a crime that he knows in advance will be committed?

With this chapter we will begin to give our reply to these three questions which I combine because they are related: 

2. The justice of God is a debated issue in discussing God's condemnation of all men for the one sin of Adam. Is it right for God to condemn others for the sin of Adam? Is it right for God to cause me to be born into this world with a sinful nature? Is it right for the Lord to allow others to suffer the evil consequences of another man's wrongs?

4. Is it just for God to punish one person for another person's crime, as in the atonement? Jesus was punished for the sins of others. How is that just and fair? Is it just for God to allow a substitute?

5. Is it just to declare one righteous by proxy? The righteousness of a believer is perfect, being not his own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ imputed to him (or put to his credit). Is that just and right?

As a preliminary observation, I will say that it is a different debate for those who are guided by scripture firstly and by reason secondarily than by those who are guided by reason alone. So, it is one thing to debate the issues surrounding original sin and imputation, around guilt and blame and responsibility, with believers and another thing to debate this subject with atheists, Muslims, etc. I will first deal primarily with what the bible has to say on the issue and then focus on the arguments against it by unbelievers and infidels which are solely upon the perceived injustice of original sin and imputation.

All three of these questions are all under the umbrella of "imputation." It will also involve other concepts such as scapegoat ideology, substitution, corporate guilt, sacrificial atonement, and "original sin." 

The concept of "original sin," which posits that humanity is condemned and guilty for the one sin of Adam, and therefore born with a sinful nature, is a core belief in some Christian denominations, but it's not universally accepted and is rejected by other religions like Judaism and Islam. It is also rejected by Pelagians, those who accept the teachings of 5th century monk Pelagius. It is rejected by several Christian groups. So we begin with a look at original sin and imputation.

B.B. Warfield, well known bible commentator, said this (See here - emphasis mine):

"From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term "imputation" is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in this sense. But the applications and relations of the doctrine expressed by it were thoroughly worked out only in the discussions which accompanied and succeeded the Reformation. In the developed theology thus brought into the possession of the Church, three several acts of imputation were established and expounded. These are the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity; the imputation of the sins of His people to the Redeemer; the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people. Though, of course, with more or less purity of conception and precision of application, these three great doctrines became the property of the whole Church, and found a place in the classical theology of the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed alike. In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called "imputation" is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one's account; and the act of setting to one's account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming."

What we will be contemplating is whether it is right and just for God to punish the whole human race for the one sin of the first man, and whether it was right and just for Jesus to be punished for the sins of others, and whether it be just and right for a person to be rewarded for what someone else did. Years ago I had a debate with a couple debating champions with the "Church of Christ" sect on original sin. These apologists were Pelagian in their beliefs. They did not believe that anyone was being held responsible for the sin of Adam and that everyone is born into the world without any guilt or sinful depraved nature. There were several texts that the brothers brought forward to try to prove their position, some of which we will examine in this section of this work on divine justice. I too had my proof texts to prove the opposite, relying primarily upon Romans chapter five. However, we did not focus the discussion on whether it was right or just for God to impute guilt to the descendants of Adam for what Adam did, but rather stuck with what the scriptures said on the subject. If debating, however, with those who do not accept the scriptures, or at least the new testament, such as with adherents to Islam or Judaism, or with atheists, the debate focuses on whether it is just, according to reason or common understanding, for God to so impute, as previously stated.

Under "PELAGIAN OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE" Warfield writes further:

"Opposition to these doctrines has, of course, not been lacking in the history of Christian thought. The first instance of important contradiction of the fundamental principle involved is presented by the Pelagian movement (see "Pelagius, Pelagian Controversies"), which arose at the beginning of the fifth century. The Pelagians denied the equity and, therefore, under the government of God, the possibility of the involvement of one free agent in the acts of another; they utterly denied, therefore, that men either suffer harm from Adam's sin or profit by Christ's merits. By their examples only, they said, can either Adam or Christ affect us; and by free imitation of them alone can we share in their merits or demerits." 

Notice how Pelagians rejected the doctrine of original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants on the basis that it was not equitable or just. Notice also how they not only rejected the idea that others could be held guilty for the crimes of another, but they also rejected the idea that Christ suffered for the sins of others. These two ideas go together, as they did in the apostle Paul's mind in Romans chapter five and in other texts. The Pelagians argued just as did my debate opponents and affirmed that it is only when one imitates either Adam or Christ, doing personally what they did, that he is either condemned or justified. 

Under "SOCINIAN, ARMINIAN, AND RATIONALISTIC OPPOSITION" Warfield wrote:

"Radical opponents arose in the Reformation age itself, the most important of whom were the Socinians (see "Socinus, Faustus, Socinians"). By them it was pronounced an inanity to speak of the transference of either merit or demerit from one person to another: we can be bad with another's badness, or good with another's goodness, they said, as little as we can be white with another's whiteness. The center of the Socinian assault was upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ: it is not possible, they affirmed, for one person to bear the punishment due to another. But their criticism cut equally deeply into the Protestant doctrines of original sin and justification by faith. The influence of their type of thought, very great from the first, increased as time went on and became a factor of importance both in the Arminian revolt at the beginning of the seventeenth century and in the rationalistic defection a hundred years later. Neither the Arminians (e.g. Limborch, Curcellæus) nor the Rationalists (e.g. Wegscheider) would hear of an imputation of Adam's sin, and both attacked with arguments very similar to those of the Socinians also the imputation of our sins to Christ or of His righteousness to us."

So, is it true as the Pelagians, Socinians, and others say? Is it unjust for God, or anyone else, to be punished or rewarded for the bad or good that another does? 

Though we concede that it is true in regard to how humans are to treat others, yet it is not true with how God treats his rational creatures, be they angels or humans. But, more on that point later in this section. As we stated earlier in this work there are things that God can rightly and justly do that creatures cannot do, and if they did do them, then they would be wrong and unjust. 

The belief that one may suffer guilt and evil consequences for what does another person does not mean that there is an end to individual responsibility. There can be corporate responsibility at the same time as or in conjunction with personal responsibility. It is not an either/or matter, but a case where both are true. 

The fact is, people can be held responsible or accountable for the sins or wrongs of the corporate entity of which they are a part. They can be held accountable for, and suffer the consequences of, the acts of their lawful representatives, examples which we see in law under the heading of vicarious liability.  

Original sin does not refer to the first sin of Adam and Eve, but refers to the consequences for the human race of that first sin. What are those consequences? Some say there are adverse consequences but not guilt. Some argue that one of those consequences is that all are born with a morally corrupt nature, one which invariably causes actual acts of sin. Others, however, say that the sinful nature is itself the effect of having been judged as having sinned in their representative head (Adam) and therefore the sinful nature presupposes guilt. These would also argue that death, whether physical or spiritual, presupposes guilt and if true, then the universality of death proves that all are judged as guilty and are condemned in Adam.

This is the old intramural debate among bible believers concerning the question of whether the bible teaches what is called "mediate imputation" or "immediate imputation." Concerning that we have more to say as we proceed with our investigation.

Many teach what is called the "age of accountability." These affirm that everyone is born into this world with a corrupt nature but are not actually guilty of sin until they reach the age of accountability and commit their first sin. 

So, as we continue in this analysis of the questions, we will be asking first - "What do the scriptures say?" Secondly, we will ask - "what does reason and observation tell us?"

Divine Justice Issues (IX)

Does the end justify the means? Some say that the end never justifies the means. Others say that the end always justifies the means. Still others say that sometimes the end justifies the means. So, who is right? Further, is it right to say that God was just and right to create a world with evil because he had good ends for so doing? If so, is that not a case of the end justifying the means? 

Of course, the previous chapters showed that the bible writers, and Christ himself, affirmed that in God's case the end did justify the means. For instance, the crucifixion was a bad thing that brought about infinite good. That does not mean, however, that an end justifies any and all means. It only means that some cases oftentimes necessitate using means that are not good in themselves. So, my belief is that the end sometimes justifies the means and sometimes not. If there are no other means to bring about the greater good, then it is justified. Though in some cases the end justifies the means, that should not mean that any and every means is justified towards achieving an end. The means are justified only if there is no other or better way to achieve the end. Also, the means do not become good because they are used to bring about a good. It is in actuality a case where evil served a good purpose as we saw in the case of Joseph and Christ. Because God brought good from Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers does not therefore make what the brothers did to be right and not a sin. Because God brought good out of the evil of the crucifixion does not make the murderers good in their murder.

"The end justifies the means" is similar to another maxim that says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or of the one. That maxim means that when making a decision, the well-being of a large group of people should be prioritized over the needs of a smaller group or a single person, even if it means sacrificing the interests of the few or the one. This makes us think of what is called "lifeboat ethics." If you have a lifeboat that holds only ten people and where any more in the boat would sink it and kill everyone and where twelve people are in the water and will drown if they are not in the boat, then two people must be allowed to drown (a bad thing). This has literally happened many times, such as in the sinking of the Titanic, and in such cases the rule is to to let women and children go into the boat first. Still, lifeboat ethics requires that two people in the above example sacrifice themselves for the good of the ten. We see this in instances of "altruism." That is where someone puts the needs of others ahead of his own, such as when a person sacrifices himself to save others. Many soldiers have died in combat because they put themselves in danger to save fellow soldiers. Paul referred to this when he wrote: "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die." (Rom. 5: 7 nkjv)

We also see altruism and as an example where 1) the end justified the means, and 2) where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few or the one, in the words of Caiaphas the high priest who was holding court over the trial of Jesus for blasphemy and other presumed crimes. Caiaphas the high priest said by the Spirit - "nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” (John 11: 50 nkjv)

Notice the word "expedient." Another word would be "profitable" (from the Greek word sympherei). Other words used in the KJV for it are good, better, profit. Caiaphas did a mental "cost/benefit" analysis and concluded that the nation should murder Jesus for the good of the entire Jewish population, a case where the end justified the means. Caiaphas meant it one way, a wrong way, but not in the way in which it was actually a right thing.  

The idea that the end justifies the means is also an integral part of what is called consequentialism and utilitarianism. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by its consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it's the right thing to do. Utilitarianism is practically the same, affirming that an act is right only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Of course there are many caveats to keep in mind when discussing these issues philosophically. Whether it be consequentialism, utilitarianism, of a cost/benefits analysis, the force of the argument for justification rests on a judgment or appraisal of what is the good end in view and whether that good is really worth the cost. And, no finite creature has that ability and is why creatures must not lean upon their own understanding but seek answers from God and his oracles.

Therefore, the apologetic I have offered (as well as others) to show that God is just in spite of the fact that evil occurs in accordance with his will (either his permissive will or his will of decree) will not be accepted by those who think that the end never justifies the means. In Muslim theology God did not need to have his Son, Jesus Christ, to die as a sacrifice in order for men to be forgiven of sin. They say that God (Allah) simply forgives when he chooses to do so. Therefore they would say that there was no need for Christ to die and his death did not bring about any greater good, but actually had bad consequences. However, I think the examples that we have given in the preceding chapters show that the end good justified the evil means, even though those means were moral evils.

Paul's Input

"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just." (Rom. 3: 4-8 nkjv)

This text bears directly upon our discussion of whether a good end justifies the use of evil means. Those who Paul thought spoke "as a man," or in common language and belief, argued that since Paul taught that God brings good things from bad things, therefore doing those bad things is really doing good. If my sin proves that God was right and just in his condemnation, then my sin is the occasion for some good, and I ought not to be punished by God for sin. Take the case of God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. That destruction displayed God's justice, sovereignty, and omnipotence. That display is a good thing. Since it was a good thing (revealing something about God), the argument of men says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was therefore not sin but good and God had no just right to condemn Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. 

Every time a person sins he may say "God, you were right in designating me a sinner." God is "justified" in his judgment and condemnation of people for every time they sin they prove God right, and every time they suffer punishment or retribution for their sins, they also prove God right. But, even though evil is a means of demonstrating God's justice and rightness it is still nevertheless evil and God is just to punish for it. That is Paul's retort.

So, we need to keep in mind the truth that affirms that an evil remains an evil even though good may come from it. 

Also, while the apologetic or theodicy I have offered that says God is not to be denied or condemned  or judged as being unjust, for his allowing evil, is unacceptable to some, I nevertheless believe it to be the reason most often given in scripture. We can say "God is sovereign and can do whatever he pleases," yet this really does not say anything about whether God is seen as righteous and just by mere sovereignty alone. So, it is not a persuasive answer to simply plead for God's sovereign right to create or allow evil. Many want to know why God has done what seems to them to be unjust or unfair. 

Divine Justice Issues (VIII)

The case of Job is another example of where God brought good out of evil and it is often referred to by bible scholars, along with Genesis 50: 20, to prove it. The evils that Job experienced were in the nature of calamities, or adversities, and not moral evil, although as we will see, God used the evil deeds of Satan and Job's counselors to bring about those bad things.

The Case of Job

"And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord." (Job 1: 12 nkjv)

Here we learn a lot about why evil occurs and we see how God's willing permission is necessary to Satan, or any other wicked man, to do the evil things they do. We have already seen how this is stated and affirmed in other texts, such as when God said of his servants that he "permitted no one to do them harm." So, who caused the evils of Job? God, Satan, or both in some sense? The latter no doubt as the record shows. Satan was the immediate cause, or we might even say the instrumental cause, but God's willing permission was also a cause. This is obvious from the text and if anyone has a problem accepting that fact, then it is because he refuses to see or acknowledge it, for his ideas about God's justice will not allow him to see and confess it. We see this in many instances. Notice this instance:

"So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.” And He said to them, “Go.” So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water." (Matt. 8: 31-32 nkjv)

The demons could not go anywhere except the Lord gave his permission. The same is true with every other evil thing that anyone has ever done. Lord God let them do it and they could not have done it without his permission or his will. We also know that God's suffering of evil is not unjust for he has good reason for his willing permission. He intends to bring greater good from his permitting such things to be done. 

We also see where God did not directly do the evils but Satan rather did them. So, we say that God was not the immediate or direct cause of those evil deeds, though he was a cause because he permitted it. And we see how Job even acknowledges this fact, as we will shortly see, which makes him a greater theologian than many who have come since his day. 

Here is the record of the evils that Satan brought on Job at the first:

"13 Now there was a day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house; 14 and a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, 15 when the Sabeans raided them and took them away—indeed they have killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 16 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 17 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands, raided the camels and took them away, yes, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” 18 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!” (vss. 13-19)

Satan, by his chosen means, brought these evils upon Job. Satan sinned in his thievery, murder, and in the havoc he wrought, not to mention the grief he caused Job and the loss of peace. But, God allowed him to commit these transgressions so that God could bring good out of it. God did not make Satan do what he did, as the immediate efficient cause, but he allowed it for his own good ends. What was that good? First, he proved Satan was wrong in his accusations against God's servant Job. Second, he proved himself right in his appraisal of Job's character. Third, he used Job's calamities to perfect Job and to demonstrate his worthiness by such fiery trials. Fourth, he used it to instruct Job and all those who read his story in God's providence, in his judgments and doings. Fifth, to bring glory to God and to demonstrate his superiority over the Devil and over circumstances, including his omniscience and omnipotence.

Here is Job's initial response to these evil things:

"Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. And he said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.” In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong." (vss. 20-22)

Notice that Job is not like some theologians who cannot allow that God has anything to do with evil occurring. He did not say "The Lord gave and Satan has taken away." Yes, Satan does take away in the story, but Job realizes that God in his providence ordered it to be or else it would not be. It reminds me of the question that is sometimes asked "do you believe that what God wills to happen will absolutely happen?" Well, we certainly can't say that what God wills to happen will not happen, for then he would not be the sovereign Lord nor omnipotent. It is very common for human beings when something really bad happens to immediately say "God why did you let that happen?" People instinctively know that God could prevent bad things from happening whenever he chooses to do so. Why do they not say "Devil, why did you do that?" 

Not only did Job recognize the hand of God behind the bad things happening to him, but he even praised God after their occurrence! This is a mark of real spiritual maturity and insight. James wrote:

"My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience." (1: 2-3 nkjv)

And Paul wrote similarly:

"And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope." (Rom. 5: 3-4 nkjv) 

Further, as we will see, Paul also rejoiced in having to endure many evils, such as in his thorn in the flesh or messenger of Satan sent to buffet him.

Job also sensed that God would ultimately bring good out of his bad situation. He later testified to this fact by saying: "But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold." (Job 23: 10 kjv)

All these are examples of God bringing good things from bad things.

Some might still think that God has not been exonerated from creating or permitting evil by this apologetic defense. To them I can only say what God himself has said in regard to this: "You thought that I was altogether like you" (Psa. 50: 21 nkjv). We should also remember these words of the Creator:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55: 8-9 nkjv)

Now let us return to the record and the word God spake to Satan.

"Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (2: 3)

Notice that Satan "incited" God to act as he did. Notice also that God says that there was no justifiable cause for God to bring upon Job the bad things enumerated in the record. Contrary to what many theologians affirm, Job's calamities and adversities were not chastisements for sin. Job was innocent of any sin that would warrant such evils. Further, the record says that Satan had incited God to be "against" Job. Of course, God was not being manipulated by Satan but was willing to be temporarily against Job so far as outward blessing of his circumstances. Notice also that God acknowledges that he was responsible for bringing upon Job his various evils. Those evils were because God was "against" Job. 

Was it right for God to allow Satan to incite him to act against Job as if he were a reprobate? Yes, and that for several reasons. Consider the words of Jesus who asked - "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’" (Matt. 20: 15 nkjv) Further, the Lord had several good reasons to justify his actions, for a greater good resulted from God's being against his righteous servant Job.

"4 So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” 6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” 7 So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips." (vss. 4-10)

Again, notice that Satan could do nothing but what God permitted him to do. Thus, God was the chief cause of Job's calamities. Satan was the immediate culpable cause, or the efficient or instrumental cause, or the blameworthy cause. Job again confesses that the  evil he was experiencing was "from God" and yet he never charged God with being unjust for doing so. 

The Evil of Blindness

"Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him." (John 9: 1-3 nkjv)

The evil in this instance is not a moral evil but the evil of blindness. However, this bad thing would later be the means of bringing glory to God, which would be the chief good resulting from his blindness. There were no doubt other good consequences of that healing of the blindness. No doubt the blind man would appreciate the gift of sight far more than those who have never been blind. Just as the greater sinners come to love Jesus more than lessor sinners when they are forgiven (See Luke 7: 42), so those who have been delivered from great calamities by the Lord have greater love and appreciation than those who have not been so delivered. 

Was it right that God allowed this man to be born blind? Was the reason Jesus gave for his blindness a justification for God so allowing him to be born blind? Why does Jesus not do likewise for every blind person? Is that fair? These are not easy questions for people to answer. Obviously yes, for he is the sovereign Lord and Creator and has a right to do what he wills with his creatures. Further, God has the perfect right to give one good thing to one and not to another. God is just in his distribution of good things. Notice these texts that affirm this to be so.

"For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” (Rom. 9: 15 nkjv)

"For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" (I Cor. 4: 7 niv)

We could cite several other texts which affirm God's right to distribute blessings, good, and reward according to his own sovereign will. God is not obligated to give equally to all. A verse we have previously cited are worth citing once again in this context.

“Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?" (Isa. 45: 9)

All this has to do with what is called "distributive justice." Distributive justice, in a theological context, refers to the fair allocation of resources and opportunities, reflecting God's concern for the well-being of all people, particularly the marginalized. But, let us notice what God said to Moses along this line.

"So the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?" (Exo. 4: 11 nkjv)

This verse is similar to this one:

"The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." (Prov. 22: 2 kjv)

I take these verses to mean that a man's circumstances and his gifts are from the Lord and that he sometimes gives to one what he withholds from another. He gives the gift of sight to one but not to another and no one can claim that God is being unfair, especially seeing that all are sinners to whom God owes nothing. If he gives something good to those who are rebels to him it is a matter of grace and mercy. Why was the man born blind? It was not because of any sin by himself or by another. It was because God did not give him the gift of sight when he was being formed in the womb. 

There are some good reasons why God distributes his good things in this way, although some are so against God and his works that they will never admit, just as Satan, that God acts justly. These have such an hatred of God that they will never acknowledge God as good and just no matter what. All they want to do is to quarrel with their Maker, a thing that is to be greatly condemned. 

Concerning whether one becomes rich or poor, or somewhere in between, Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 8:18 these words: "Remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the power to get wealth." 

Solomon also wrote:

"Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God." (Eccl. 5: 19 niv)

Even among the members of God's family, he does not give all equal gifts. Wrote Paul:

"4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills." (I Cor. 12: 4-11 nkjv)

These were not all equal gifts but they all were equally important. Notice how God is sovereign in his distribution of gifts. The record says "distributing to each one individually as He wills." The same is true in nature. God gives gifts to one and not to another. So Paul testified earlier in his first epistle to the Corinthians. He says - "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." (I Cor. 7: 7 nkjv)

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh

"7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (II Cor. 12: 7-10 nkjv)

Here is another case where God (or Christ) brought good out of a bad thing. That bad thing was what Paul called a "thorn in the flesh," which he further calls "a messenger of Satan." He also testifies that other things which are bad turn out to be good because of God's providential working. He says he rejoices in bad things such as infirmities, reproaches, needs, persecutions, distresses. Why? Because he knows that God has determined to bring forth good from those evil things. What is that good? First, the thorn in the flesh and the other things mentioned will serve to keep Paul from pride and to keep him humble and meek, and correct in his appraisal of himself. They kept Paul from getting the "big head." Second, through the gift of faith and perseverance Paul would learn to lean more on Christ and less on himself. Third, by these evils Paul would be perfected, for Christ said to him "my strength is made perfect in weakness" and Paul was able to say "when I am weak then I am strong." Fourth, by the messenger of Satan and those evils "the power of Christ" would "rest upon" him. Fifth, Paul's case resembles the case of Job and are intended to make sure that his trials would purify him so that he would in the end "come forth as pure gold." 

In closing this section where we are answering the questions about the justice of God in willing evil to exist, even when he knew in advance what evil would be occurring, we prepare the way to answer the age old question debated by philosophers and theologians which asks "does the end justify the means?" Some might object to the justification I have put forth that says God is justified in the evil he creates (or allows) because he has some greater end or good in mind by saying "the end never justifies the means." So, we will address that question in the next chapter. 

However, we have given several examples where God brought good out of evil, whether that evil be a moral evil or a natural evil. 

Divine Justice Issues (VII)

In this chapter we will give more examples where God brought good out of evil, whether it be moral evil or natural evils (calamities and tragedies). In this and the next chapter we will conclude our apologetic in showing that God is not unjust because he created a world with evil. We gave our answer to Epicurus and those who falsely reason in regard to "the problem of evil." We showed that there is really no problem at all, and that most people simply jump to conclusions about the problem and make hasty generalizations, which is a logical fallacy. One or more of their propositions are not fact. The idea that a good God would prevent all evil is a presupposition without any warrant from either reason or scripture. The idea that God could have had good reason and a greater good from his having created evil or allowed for its existence seems not to enter into the minds of many. Some do agree that God is just in his allowing evil to exist because of a greater good, that being "free will." That it is a good thing, in the sense in which it is described in scripture, we do not deny. But we insist that a far greater good was how evil brings great glory to God and reveals to angels and men something about himself that could not be known another way.

Pharaoh and Evil Men

"For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” (Rom. 9: 17 nkjv)

Pharaoh was a wicked tyrant. He used his political power to enslave others and he committed any sin he wanted to do. Why did God not destroy Pharaoh before he had done all his evil deeds? Would it have been a good thing to have killed Hitler or Stalin before they had murdered so many millions? Many would quickly say "yes." But, God thought differently, or else he would have killed Stalin and Hitler before their murderous enterprises. That God does kill people is seen throughout the old testament. God at one point even "sought to kill" Moses. (See Exo. 4: 24) He even intended to kill the whole Israelite nation in Exodus chapter 32 but Moses mediated and God relented of his intention. We are also told by Samuel the prophet that God "kills and makes alive." (I Sam. 2: 6)

Not only did God not kill Pharaoh (to keep him from killing people and doing his evil deeds), but the text says that God raised him up, and despite foreseeing the evil he would do, raised him up any way, in order that a greater good might come to pass, that greater good being the demonstration to angels and men of his omnipotence and sovereignty. That greater good was 1) show forth God's great power, and 2) God's name would be declared in all the earth. We may well say of evil men like Pharaoh, Hitler, Stalin, Nero, or any other wicked man of power, what Peter says of such when he wrote these words:

"But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish." (II Peter 2: 12 niv)

Kenneth Wuest gives us this translation:

"But these, as irrational creatures, having been born as creatures of instinct, [destined] for capture and destruction, uttering blasphemies in the sphere of those things concerning which they are ignorant, shall in their [acts of] destroying surely be destroyed." 

Born and existing for no other reason than to be destroyed. So it may be said of every evil person, and everyone who fails to believe in God and to love and serve him. Think about it. God foreknows who will believe and who will not (just as Jesus did - John 6: 64). So, if he suffers such evil ones to be born or to exist, then we may well say of them that they are born for destruction, or "made (or born) to be taken and destroyed." Such was Satan and Pharaoh. Both were made to be taken and destroyed. So, is that just? Did God do wrong to suffer to be made or born those who he foreknows will reject him and do great evil and harm to others? Yes, it is just. A greater good comes from suffering such evil men to exist. God is able to use that evil to demonstrate his omnipotence. God will be glorified by destroying them. God can do such things to his creatures and no creature has any justification for accusing God of being unjust. Notice the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’? (Isa. 45: 9 nkjv)

No creature has any just complaint to make to God nor to accuse God of being unjust or unfair. For not only has God created them knowing their end but those who are like Pharaoh have made themselves that way by their rebellion against God. Just as the Exodus record says that Pharaoh hardened his heart as well as saying that God hardened his heart, so we may likewise say that God made some, like animals, for no other purpose than to be destroyed, and also that they made themselves animals for destruction. Recall that Jesus said of Judas (and by implication many others also) that "It was better had he never been born." (Matt. 26: 24) So it may be said of Lucifer, Pharaoh, Hitler, etc. For many, this is a hard fact to swallow. Are there really some people who are born for destruction? Is that not unjust for God to bring into existence such people, or to not kill them before they have done all their wicked and destructive deeds? No, first because he is the sovereign creator and sole decider of the destiny of his creatures and second, he brings about a greater good from the evil and therefore he is just.

In many ways Pharaoh's storied life mirrors that of Lucifer who fell from heaven and became Satan or the Devil, much like the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28: 11-19 or the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14: 12-14. In other words, we may say of Lucifer that God raised him up in order that God might show forth his almightiness and his sovereignty. Think about it. If God wanted to demonstrate his omnipotence, would he not want an opponent to defeat? A boxer might be great in boxing, but no one would know it unless he faced another good boxer. 

Wrote one writer on Milton's Paradise Lost (See here - emphasis mine):

"Here Milton offers his answer to the Problem of Evil, explaining how evil can exist in a universe ruled by an omnipotent and benevolent God. It's one of those pesky theological questions that one one has ever answered to everyone's satisfaction. Personally, I think the best answer appears in the Book of Job, in which God's purpose remains necessarily beyond human comprehension. Milton, however, has promised to "justifie the wayes of God to men" and therefore cannot take refuge in a plea of ignorance (I. 26). So here we see his answer: God allows Satan to do evil because He knows Satan will only succeed in heaping damnation upon himself and bring forth even more good in the long run. (This is the theological doctrine of felix culpa or "the fortunate fall.")"

This is correct. Wrote the same author:

"Although Milton avoids appealing to the Job argument, his treatment of Satan's evil here resembles another Old Testament story: that of Moses and Pharaoh. In Exodus, Moses repeatedly insists that Pharaoh release the Israelites and Pharaoh keeps agreeing, but then changing his mind. The Bible is quite consistent in describing Pharaoh's repeated failures to live up to his agreements: "he hardened his heart." But by the time we get to the plague of boils, Pharaoh seems to have had enough. This time he does not harden his own heart. Instead, God does it for him..."

Wrote another author on Milton's Paradise Lost:

"In Book 1 Milton has Beelzebub (who is, in the poem, Satan's chief lieutenant) say of the recent war they waged in heaven: 

 

"O Prince, O Chief of many Throned Powers, That led the embattl’d Seraphim to War 

Under thy conduct, and in dreadful deeds Fearless, endanger’d Heav’n’s perpetual King; 

And put to proof his high Supremacy, Whether upheld by strength, or Chance, or Fate" (128-33) 

(As cited here)

"He frankly admits that the outcome of the war is the answer to the question: "But what if he our Conqueror (whom I now Of force believe Almighty, since no less Than such could have o’rpowered such a force as ours)" (lines 143-45)" (Ibid)

In the same speech by Beelzebub he says: 

"...into what Pit thou seest From what highth fall'n, 

so much the stronger prov'd He with his Thunder: 

and till then who knew The force of those dire Arms?"

The overthrow of Satan and his cohorts proved that God was supreme, omnipotent, and just. God made use of these wicked creatures to display his attributes.

The Crucifixion

"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it." (Acts 2: 23-24 nkjv)

“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done." (Acts 4: 27-28 nkjv)

Did God want Christ to be crucified? Why would any father want his only son to be put to death in such a horrible manner? Looking at it from one perspective, it shows God to be most evil. But, from another and more informed perspective, it is a most righteous and just thing. Yes, God was not the immediate or direct cause of the murder, for God cannot be such per the words of James: "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." (James 1: 13 nkjv) Yet, the above texts tell us that God had willed the death of his incarnate Son and actually delivered Christ to those murderers, knowing what they were going to do. Again, it is because a far greater good was going to be accomplished by his death. That is why the prophet said about the murder of Christ - "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," to "put him to grief," and "to make his soul an offering for sin." (Isa. 53: 10) As a thing in itself, or as an end in itself, the Father had no pleasure in the murder of his Son. That indeed would make him an evil deity. But, he took pleasure in it, knowing the infinite good that would ensue from it.

Most of the examples of evil we have already called attention to are in fact moral evils or sins. So, when we read where God caused or created evil, we must realize that he did not do so because he took any delight in sin or moral evil, but because he determined to permit it for his own good ends. The murder of Christ is the greatest of all evils and yet out of it came the greatest of all good.

Salvation Through Israel's Fall

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles." (Rom. 11: 11 nkjv)

"You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear." (vss. 19-20) 

By the "fall" of Israel is meant their rejection of Christ through unbelief, all which is a moral evil or sin. Here then is another example where a greater good came from a moral evil. That greater good is in two ways. First, it brings salvation to the Gentiles in a far great way than ever before. Second, it was only temporary for in the future it will bring the masses of Israel to salvation through jealousy of the Gentiles. They were cast away by God (a bad thing) in order to ensure the salvation of Gentiles and of latter day Israel.

We have a few more examples to put on record and will do that in the next chapter.

Divine Justice Issues (VI)

In this chapter we will look at several biblical examples where God brings good out of evil. Evil, whether moral or natural (as in calamities), has not been suffered by God for no reason. There is a divine purpose in its allowance. In fact, everything has a divine purpose. (See Eccl. 3: 1-8) We must not therefore judge or condemn God too quickly for the existence of evil. 

A General Truth Proposition

“And we know that all things work together for good, to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Rom. 8: 28 KJV)

If "all things" literally means all things, then evil must be included in this statement. Some who find it disagreeable to believe will often find themselves saying "all things" does not mean all things but some things (as in the context) or will say that moral evil is not a "thing," which is ridiculous. Is moral good not a thing too? Are thoughts and actions not things? Are they all nothing? People who argue this way show that they are not able to handle the truth that affirms that God has willed that all things occur just as he has foreseen. It is a case of theological cognitive dissonance. But, there is no reason to limit "all things" in the passage. Will those who argue this way say the same thing about all the other passages that affirm that "all things are of God"? Or, deny that God "works all things after the counsel of his own will"? (Eph. 1: 11)

This does not mean that we "call evil good, and good evil." (Isa. 5: 20 kjv) No, evil is not good, although God overrules evil to bring forth good. The Psalmist affirmed a truth believed by all lovers of God: "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You." (Psa. 5: 4 nkjv) So too did the prophet Habakkuk: "You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, And cannot look on wickedness." (Hab. 1: 5 kjv) God is too good to do wrong and too wise to make a mistake.

Genesis 50: 20

We refer to the case of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers along with the other attendant sins connected with that evil deed. Joseph, long after his being sold into slavery, when experiencing good in spite of it and because of it, said to his brothers:

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." (Gen. 50: 20 nkjv)

So, what was the "good" that God determined to bring about by Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt? Joseph tells his brothers that it was "in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." God foreknew that there would be a great famine lasting seven years and that it would mean the death of many people, including Israel and his children. He also foresaw the sin of Joseph's brothers and used that wicked deed to bring Joseph into Egypt and there in his providence bring him to high position in Egypt. By the dreams of the famine, Joseph advised pharaoh to store up grain in the good years so that there would be grain in the years of famine. This later brought Joseph's brothers, yea, even Jacob himself, into Egypt to buy grain and thus be saved from starvation and death. 

Further, we see where the "evil" of selling Joseph into slavery was a "thing." We cannot say that it was nothing! We see how God overruled the evil deed and worked it after the counsel of his own will to bring forth salvation from starvation. We see how it was worked by God for the good of his people.

Could God have used a way to save people from the famine where an evil deed was not the means? Yes, of course. But, God did not immediately cause the evil deed, though he willingly allowed it and chose not to stop it from happening, determining that he would make use of the sin of Joseph's brothers. Further, God's use of that evil does not make the evil deed to be good in itself, for it was still evil even though God brought good out of it. It was the purpose of the brothers to do the evil deed, but it was also according to God's permissive will, or what he meant to result from it. Further, the fact that God brought good out of the evil did not excuse or justify the brothers, nor mean that they did not suffer adverse consequences as a result of it. Both evil and good came from the evil act, the good occurring because of God's providence. 

This was a central teaching of the apostle Paul and is why he wrote these words:

"And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." (Rom. 3: 8 esv)

I can see why some would accuse those of us who believe that evil serves a greater purpose in the plan of God of believing such a thing, and like the apostle we retort "their condemnation is just." Just because God brings good out of evil does not mean that we should see that as a justification for us to either do or to allow evil to occur. Yes, as regard bad things that are not ethical or moral, we do suffer evil to bring forth good. That is why we lock criminals in prison for their evil doing. We do the evil of imprisonment and punishment in order that the good of reformation might be realized. Paul says of Hymenaeus and Alexander, who rejected faith and a good conscience, that he had "delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." (I Tim. 1: 20 nkjv) 

Yes, God did suffer moral evil to occur with the intent of bringing about a greater good, and we may say that he did in fact create a world where evil would occur in order to bring about a greater good, but that does not mean that we should always do the same. Think of Paul's words in Romans chapter five where he writes: "But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." (vs. 20 nkjv) Will we reason as those who are falsely accusing Paul of believing in doing evil so that good may come and say "let us commit sin so that grace may abound"? Forbid the thought. 

Being spanked by a father is not a good thing in itself! But, hopefully, what comes from the bad thing is often a good thing. So Paul wrote:

"Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Heb. 12: 9-11 nkjv)

Being chastened is an evil in itself as Paul says, it being "painful," and not joyful at all. Yet, it is done in order to bring forth a good, i.e. "the peaceable fruit of righteousness." So he also wrote: "we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance." (Rom. 5: 3 nkjv) Tribulations (troubles) are not good things and yet God is able to bring forth a good thing from it, such as perseverance. Oftentimes, because of God's blessing and providence, people acknowledge how such adversities and hard life have become a means to develop good character. 

The Psalmist testified: "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." (Psa. 76: 10 kjv) Is that not bringing good out of evil? The wrath of man is an evil. Restraining evil and obtaining praise by the wrath of man are good things. Many other examples are there but we move on.

Israel's Bondage In Egypt

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." (Genesis 15:13-16)

Why did God allow Israel to become slaves for four hundred years (an evil thing)? Was it punishment for the sins of Joseph's brothers? Probably not. No doubt it was to use that evil to bring about building the good character of the nation. I think this is seen in the oracle of God upon Israel's time in Egyptian slavery: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11: 1 nkjv) That time in Egypt was the means of the child becoming a mature son. That time in Egypt was a time of grievous affliction for God says to Moses when the four hundred years was nearing its end: "And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows." (Exo. 3: 7 kjv) These afflictions, slavery, and sorrows are evil things and yet God brought forth good therefrom. The Psalmist said the same thing: "It is good for me that I have been afflicted, That I may learn Your statutes." (Psa. 119: 71 nkjv) So Israel was educated and matured while in Egypt. So we read the historical record by Moses who said - "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew." (Exo. 1: 12 kjv) Seventy persons went into Egypt at the first, and when the four hundred years had passed, they numbered in the millions. 

Israel learned a lot while in Egyptian bondage. So later they were exhorted with these words:

"Remember that you were slaves in Egypt" (Deut. 24: 18 NIV). 

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." (Exo. 22: 2)

"You shall not oppress an alien, for you know the heart of an alien, seeing you were aliens in the land of Egypt." (Exo. 23: 9)

So, this is another case of good coming from evil. In the next chapter we will consider a few other examples and then move on to consider other difficulties theologians face when it comes to justifying the ways of God to men.

Divine Justice Issues (V)

We will pick up where we left off in the previous chapter and begin this chapter with giving biblical examples where God brought good out of evil. We have contended that God had a good and just reason for creating a world where evil would eventuate, which is the common Christian apologetic for what is called "the problem of evil." Most Christians believe that "free will" is that greater good. I don't subscribe to that apologetic but I do agree that God had a good reason for creating a world where evil would eventuate. That is not to say that I deny that God gave his rational creatures a degree of free will, but I don't believe that this is the greater good he had in mind. After all it must be conceded that "free will" has not turned out to be all that great a good thing. What bible believer can deny that more evil than good has come into being from God given free will? That more people are going to spend eternity in hell because of free will than go to heaven by free will? So then, what is that greater good? 

God's Glory Displayed by Redemption

If there was no sin, then there would be no need for redemption, and therefore no glory in the act of being saved by Christ. Not only would there be no glory but there would be aspects of God's character and nature that would not be displayed. How would anyone know of God's mercy and compassion if there was never a need for mercy? How would anyone know of God's forbearance and longsuffering? Though some aspects of God's grace may be known apart from the knowledge of sin or evil, yet grace in its fullness could not have been known except in the story of saving wretched sinners. The beauty of diamonds is magnified when on a black background, so too the grace of God in the context of the blackness of moral evil. 

Consider also that had there been no sin of man, then the man Christ Jesus would never have been. Yes, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, would have been. But, there would have been no incarnation, no Calvary, no redemption. 

The big question is to ask which came first, God's purpose to create the world and the human race, or his purpose to glorify himself in redemption? Did he create apart from anything having to do with redemption from sin? Was redemption a kind of afterthought or plan B? Was God's glory through redemption by Christ behind the purpose of creation? Think of all the good that comes from redemption. Think also of all the glory that comes to God by redemption from sin. Think of all that is known about God through redemption. Can we say that God created the world, including all its rational creatures made in the image of God, with the intent that by its apostasy he might glorify himself in redemption? Or, did he create the world with no thought of redemption in mind? A key passage on this question is found in Ephesians chapter three. 

"Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God..."

In my series on "Redemption" I analyzed this text. (See here) The focus is on the words "who created all things by Jesus Christ to the intent..." What intent? I firmly believe God's intent was to display his glories through the redemption of the church. Therefore the text is saying that God's purpose in creating the world was so that he might later display his grace, mercy, and other moral attributes by suffering sin to come into existence and then redeeming men from it. In other words, creation was unto redemption. This would make redemption a premeditation rather than an afterthought. 

In the previous chapter I cited from another article of mine from years ago where I cited from an article from philosophy of religion web site, which said:

"The good that is the existence of free moral agents, it is suggested, therefore outweighs the bad that is the existence of moral evil, and God therefore did well in creating free agents even though he knew that some of them would commit moral evils."

This is a utilitarian view of things. What is utilitarianism? It is the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. But, we must not think that God's design in redemption was to save the majority of the human race, for Jesus said that only few would be saved and that the majority walk the road to perdition. (Matt. 7: 13-14) Rather, the greater good is the glory and praise God receives from the elect angels and the elect among men. Recall that Paul said that God's intent in creating all things was so that by the church (and redemption of it) might be the means whereby "the principalities and powers in heavenly places" might come to know something of God's wisdom, and also other aspects of the nature and character of God. By "principalities and powers" allusion is to the angels of heaven. The drama of man's fall and his restoration is a means of teaching angels about good and evil, about sin and redemption, about God's moral nature and his attributes. The following verses uphold this proposition.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." (Rom. 1: 19 kjv)

Who can doubt that the story (or novel) of man's creation, fall into sin and death, and condemnation and also of his redemption and restoration unto eternal life and glory, was designed to instruct his creatures, either angels or men, or any other creature God may yet create, in the character of God? Who can deny that there are things that would not be known of God apart from this story? I have often wondered if God could have successfully taught this lesson to all his creatures, including Satan and the fallen angels, by letting them see this story in a dream or vision and so accomplish his teaching without actually bringing evil into existence. If he did, it is doubtful that he would tell his creatures till after they have read the novel and virtually experienced it.  

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." (I Peter 1: 12 kjv)

The Greek word for "look" means to stoop down in order to get a close view. It means to get a very close inspection, as if looking through a microscope. 

No doubt the elect holy angels learned much about God and his ways by how he dealt with Lucifer and the other fallen angels. But, they have learned much more about God and his ways by looking into the things that have to do with redemption, and particularly as it relates to the eternal Son of God who became a man. We may say therefore with the apostle that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." (Rom. 5: 20) There would be no abounding grace seen where there was no sin.

After all, by man's sin he came to "know good and evil" even as God does. What does that mean?

Adam and Eve knew before the Fall that eating from the tree was wrong as Eve's dialog with the Serpent shows. Therefore knowing good and evil cannot refer to the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Also, God "knows good and evil," and not by experience, so it cannot refer to experiential knowledge as many people think. There appears to be some important sense in which this knowledge made them more like God because the text says that they have "become like one us, knowing good and evil." 

Needless to say there is a lot of disagreement over what it meant for Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil by their disobedience. I have wondered, as have a few others, whether God was speaking sarcastically when he said "Behold (or look at that) the man is become as one of us to know good and evil," which means just the opposite, that he had now lost the ability to discern right from wrong. To paraphrase, God is, by this view, saying "Take a look at the Adam and Eve now in their fallen condition, they thought disobeying my command would make them wise as I am, but now they run from me and hide, and are ashamed of themselves!" 

However, it may not be sarcasm, and may be saying that Adam's and Eve's knowledge of right and wrong were somehow enhanced, implying that their knowledge of ethics and morals was before limited and superficial.  

My whole point in referring to this event is to show that evil brought increased knowledge of righteousness and unrighteousness. In the same oracle God reveals through his words to the Serpent that a savior or redeemer would be provided to undo the work of the Serpent. Thus, not only did our first parents come to understand what alienation from God entailed, but they began to understand something about redemption. Had they never sinned, they would still have but a limited and superficial knowledge of good and evil and certainly no knowledge of a Redeemer nor of God's grace, mercy, and his justice. 

Here are some verses that seem to tell us what is involved in knowing good and evil.

“Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?” (1 Kings 3:9).

Similarly, Hebrews 5:14 tells us that the spiritually mature "discern between good and evil" through constant practice. The word discern, in the Greek, diakrisis, comes from the same root word as krino—to judge.

God says there is coming a time when Israel would be able to discern between good and evil.

"Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not." (Mal. 3: 18 kjv)

What God knows naturally as God, Adam and Eve, yea, and every fallen sinner, comes to know by experience. There are things that we learn by experience. 

In concluding this chapter, let us analyze some things about what Augustine said in the above citation at the heading of this post and some of the propositions in the reasoning of Epicurus.

Augustine - "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist."

I have contended that the greater good that God predetermined to bring out of the evil he made possible was redemption and a revelation of his benevolence, love, kindness, mercy, forbearance, longsuffering, forgiveness, yea, of his very heart. Paul said that he had not known sin except by divine law, writing these words:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” (Rom. 7: 7 nkjv)

Just as the law of God reveals sin (it actually also reveals what is right), do does sin reveal the need for redemption, and the gospel reveals the way of redemption. So we may say "I had not known forgiveness through Christ except by having fallen into sin." 

Epicurus -

"if God is able and willing to prevent evil, then whence comes evil?"

"If he is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent."

In response to the first proposition we agree that God is able to prevent evil, a proposition many Christian teachers do not agree with. Some say that once God gave his creatures free will, he then became unable to prevent evil. However, we do find examples in scripture where God did in fact prevent a person from sinning. God said to Abimelech - "it was I who kept you from sinning against me" (Gen. 20: 6). The bible mentions many restraints that God has providentially in place to prevent evil from getting worse. Also, we know that God has prevented lots of instances of people doing wrong. So we read about Abraham and God's protection of him in these words:

"He permitted no one to do them wrong; Yes, He rebuked kings for their sakes, Saying, "Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm." (Psa. 105: 14-15 nkjv)

Notice also the word "permitted." He did not permit something and without that permission no one could do them wrong. This upholds what I have said about God's permissive will. Nothing can come to pass but what God permits. 

In some cases God prevents sinners from committing the sin they imagine to do. At other times he does not prevent it. Some might say that God is wrong not to prevent every evil from occurring, but that would be a hasty generalization and fallacious reasoning.

Further, just because God is for the moment not preventing evil to occur does not mean that he will always cease preventing it. The bible informs us that evil doing is temporary, that a day is coming when there will be no more evil in the world. We have also seen how God does have a greater good in mind in the evil he now suffers to occur. We must always remember that God's ways are "beyond finding out," being inscrutable and unsearchable. (See Rom. 11: 33) 

When Epicurus said "If he is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent," we see how this is fallacious reasoning. It is erroneous because it assumes that no good can come from evil and assumes that because God allows evil in one instance, he will allow it in every instance without end. 

In the next chapter we will continue to examine this idea of God bringing immense good out of evil.