This is a
bloody and gruesome chapter.
What’s The Point?
Yet, at
first glance it seems to be a chapter of justice. Joram, bad king and child of a bad king, is
killed. Jezebel, evil wife of a bad
king, is also killed. Ahaziah, bad king
leading the people of Judah astray, is killed.
On these terms, this chapter seems to be a chapter about justice.
This is
also a great chapter from another perspective.
Elijah’s prophecy about Jehu killing people begins to come true. Since the Word of the Lord is proven true,
this chapter seems just. When Jehu kills
Joram, his body is treated in such a way that another prophecy of the Lord
comes true and this chapter seems just.
When Jezebel is slain and her body is consumed, yet another prophecy of
the Lord comes true and this chapter seems just. Not only do we have evil being slain but we
also have the Word of God being proven true.
I seem to be building a great case for this being a great chapter of the
Bible. It is.
Theodicy on Trial
However, I
cannot deny that within me there is a need to put “Theodicy on trial”* here. I know
in doing so that I am taking the wrong point.
God is just and God is honorable.
But I’m going to do it because sometimes in order to get to truth you
must walk the logic of untruth in order to expose it for what it is.} I have to ask a question, and I’ll be honest
and say that the question is coming because I have recently started up a Bible
Study on Habakkuk. Habakkuk also feels
the need to put Theodicy on trial.
Here’s the
question:
- How does a just and righteous God justify using evil people in this world in order to accomplish His will?
Or, let me
put it another way:
- How does the involvement of evil not intrinsically make the act evil?
This second
question is really the question that draws God’s character into question. If God is willing to use evil to accomplish
His purposes, then why doesn’t that inherently mean that the act is evil? And if the act actually is evil and the act
is inherently God’s plan, then what does that say about God?
Now, I’ve
confessed earlier that I am doing something dangerous. We should not put God on trial unless we
expect to not only be proven wrong but also called to change. If we think we can put God on trial, then
clearly there is something wrong with our mind that needs to change. If there is a part of our mind that can
question God’s actions then by definition we are not on the same page as
God. Therefore, either God or I need to
change. Since it’s not God, it must be
me. This is why the process of putting
Theodicy on trial is sometimes necessary.
It isn’t necessary to put the character of God on trial; it is necessary
to expose the part of me that thinks I have a legitimate reason to put God on
trial. And it is necessary to change
that part of me to bring it back in line with God.**
So I begin
the Theodicy on trial process knowing that it will result in me needing to
change. If God is just – and I genuinely
believe that He is – then there must be something inherently wrong with my
premise. If God is just, then involving
an evil person in an act does not inherently make the act evil. If this is true, then there is nothing wrong
with using an evil person (or an evil regime) to accomplish the good will of
God.
In fact, I
think what this brings to the table is the idea that some actions can be both
good and evil depending on the motivation behind them. Let me give you two examples.
In the
first example, suppose I complement a person of the opposite sex on their
beauty. This act could be righteous or
evil – in fact it could be both at the same time!
- God could be using my compliment to boost the confidence of the person to whom I am saying it. Perhaps the person is having a bad day, the person has a low self-esteem, or the person just needs a reason to smile. In passing along love, it could be a very good thing. If my reason for giving the compliment is to pass along God’s love, then I am in line with God.
- However, what if I am passing along the compliment (in a complimentary way) because deep down in my heart I am actually lusting after the beauty before me. Now it is I who am being evil, and doubly evil! Not only am I lusting – which is bad enough – but if I am lusting and framing it as a compliment I am also being deceptive about my motivation. In other words, I am guilty of both lust and lying! God might be able to use the compliment for good, but certainly I was behaving in an evil manner while accomplishing His will.
In the
second example, suppose I invite someone over for dinner. This act could also be righteous or evil – or
both at the same time!
- Perhaps the person is in need of a meal or in need of fellowship. I could be genuinely giving food and water to those who need it – fulfilling Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 25:35-36. This would be a very good thing!
- However, perhaps I am doing it so that they will be in my debt. Perhaps I am trying to be their friend so that when I need some support they will feel guilty and feel the need to take my side. Perhaps I am doing the act not for generosity, but for selfish intent! This is clearly evil, yet God could still use my evil inside and bring about good in the person that I have invited.
As we can
see, God can work through good people and bring about good. God can work through evil people – even while
they are actively practicing evil! – and still bring about good. For a great Biblical example of this, read
Genesis 37:12-36. Then read the
commentary on this passage in Genesis 50:20.
My point
in this exercise is to demonstrate how much my human understanding cannot
fathom God. In my frail humanity, I
assume that just because God’s ways are accomplished through an evil man, then
God is unjust. But such is not the
case. God can work good even through an
evil man – although the evil man will still be held accountable for his desire
to accomplish God’s purpose through evil means.
Just because God accomplishes good through my acts does not mean that I
am good or even responsible for doing good.
I am responsible for my intentions, not whether or not God can make my
intentions do His will. I can be guilty of doing evil even while God is making
the fruit of my actions turn out for good!
This is
one of the underlying truths about Jehu’s actions against Joram, Ahaziah, and
Jezreel. Jehu does well in that the Lord
is able to work through him. But that
does not inherently mean that he did it for the right reason, the right
motivation, or even that he was a good man.
Let’s be careful to not evaluate Jehu as a good person until we have
heard his whole story – which we will hear tomorrow.
<><
* Theodicy is the word we
use for God’s nature of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. It comes from two Greek words: theos (God)
and dike (righteousness/justice). When
we take God’s character and question it, we call it “Theodicy on Trial.” This is a fairly common practice, and it
appears often in our Old Testament. 2
great examples of Theodicy on Trial are the entire book of Job and the first
two chapters of the book of Habakkuk.
There are certainly other examples in our Bible, illustrating that the
process of putting Theodicy on trial is not inherently bad so long as we
understand that we will be proven wrong and it is us who will be called to
change, not God.
**This is the very nature
of the book of Habakkuk and the book of Job.
Those two people put God on trial and in the end accept that they need
to change. And they do change through
the process! That is what makes those
books neat! And for the record, it is
also the very thing that that makes the book of Jonah so very sad. Jonah puts Theodicy on trial and doesn’t see
that it is him that needs to change and not God. So Jonah doesn’t learn through the Theodicy
on trial process. We need to be like Job
and Habakkuk, not Jonah!
No comments:
Post a Comment