Is God Cruel and Sexist, or a Liberator?

If you're like me you sometimes scratch your head while reading parts of the Old Testament. In the last part of Numbers alone, we're confronted with Balaam, a pagan prophet-for-hire who apparently hears from God, seems to do what God said, and is saved by a talking donkey from God's angel who is poised to kill him with a sword! Then there are God's instructions for Israel to wipe out whole nations (like the Midianites in ch. 31). Curiously, when Israel's army only killed every adult male(!), Moses was angered that they didn't finish the job. So he ordered them to kill the non-virgin women and boys, allowing Israel to keep the "young girls" alive for themselves! Whoa! What's more? This is a harbinger of things to come as the Israelites cross the Jordan and conquer the Promised Land!

One interesting subject that keeps popping up is the way women are treated in the Old Testament. I've gotten a couple of emails about this. Why does it seem that God favors men over women? In Leviticus a woman was considered ceremonially "unclean" for 40 days after giving birth to a boy, but 80 days after a girl. What’s that all about? Now in Numbers women are not counted in the censuses and sometimes seem to be considered mere property! Those who seek to discredit the Bible and Christianity like to remind us of passages like these. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins often calls God "misogynistic," and feminists have accused him of sexism and patriarchy. Perhaps today--which is "International Women's Day"--I should address this criticism.

Actually, when understood in context, God is the equalizer and ultimate liberator of women--as seen most clearly in creation and in Christ. And when we’re reading that part of God’s dealing with Israel in the wilderness, OUR present-day context taints our reading. Don’t forget, women have had the right to vote for less than 100 years in the USA! We tend to see all things throughout history through the lens of our own culture. God was dealing with Israel according to their own social and cultural mores. Truth is, the Law was a vast improvement for the women of that day compared to what was the universal norm before. Women were truly considered slaves or perhaps sexual pets at times—in many non-Christian cultures, this is still the case today. It's sad but true. This chauvinism is the result of the fall and curse. Sin resulted in much evil and inequality. Sin unrestrained brings dog-eat-dog tyranny. Of course this is not what God intended.

Gen. 1:27 reads, "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them."

God created both in his image, and has a purpose for both. Then came the fall, then the curse, then humankind gave way to sin. That’s where injustice finds its origin. The Old Testament is, in many ways, an exposé of human failure and corruption. The Law (Exodus-Deuteronomy) is a vast improvement over what preceded it, and tempered sin’s effects.

Christ, of course, brought light and truth. He conquered sin. But first, he showed by example how women were to be treated. He, God Incarnate, came to us through a woman and placed women in prominent roles in his ministry; in fact, women were last at the cross and first at the tomb! We frequently recite a verse (Gal. 3:28) that we must remember as we read the Old Testament:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

When Christ comes again, he will set all things right. I think that means absolute justice and the ultimate equality of all things! In fact, my hunch is that many will be surprised as Christ "exalts the humbled and humbles the exalted" (Matt. 23:12, Luke 14:11, 18:14) and find that many women will occupy the most exalted positions in heaven.

The whole issue of “women’s rights” is a hot political topic—including right now. It’s borderline insanity, I know, but I’m going to address this whole question on Sunday, including the issue of a woman’s role in society, family, and church. It’s going to be fun!!!

I’m reading a great book that Tony Walls (Providence Jefferson City Campus Pastor) turned me on to entitled, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan. It is an extremely good read. I only wish I would have read a book like this 25 years ago! I highly recommend it.

Why God Allowed Sin & Suffering

Reading through Genesis and Job these past few weeks caused me to go down a personal rabbit trail and grapple with the whole reason for sin and suffering (as I'm sure others have). Be warned! The conclusions that I am drawing may not put to rest the question, “Why does God allow sin and suffering?” for you. In fact, it may even raise more questions. That’s ok. I’m not sure it is possible to truly resolve the issue on this side of heaven to everyone’s satisfaction, but read on if you’re brave enough (or curious enough) to join me in chasing this rabbit. While there are myriad Scriptures I could quote in support of the concepts I espouse, I have resisted the temptation to cite them for the sake of readability. Here goes:

God was, in the pre-existent fellowship of the Trinity, completely and perfectly satisfied, overflowing with pleasure and joy. God considered it a great good to share the joy and satisfaction he had in himself with others—with humankind—creatures he made for that very purpose. So in creation, after making everything in the universe to foster life—both lower and higher forms for the ultimate support of human life—God finally made human beings in his in his image, giving them the capacity to know him and experience the joy and satisfaction he has in himself.

He must have determined that for his overwhelming joy and satisfaction to be experienced by humanity, there must be sin and suffering. How do I come to this conclusion?

First, the existence of actual sin and evil was necessary for God to define himself to his creatures. He defined himself to them as holy (morally good), which requires that both moral good and evil must be defined. God spelled out both reward for good (vis. pleasure) and consequences for evil (vis. suffering), which are also tied to being like or unlike his character. Just as to understand light one needs to know what darkness is, evil and suffering stand in stark contrast to good and pleasure.

Second, sin was made possible when God granted humans a free will. Free will is necessary for true love to occur. C.S. Lewis wrote:

...free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other…. And for that they must be free.

Without a morally significant free will, our “goodness” (or obedience to a good God) means nothing and is not praiseworthy, any more than it is praiseworthy for a machine to do what it was designed to do. Likewise, if it were impossible to not choose good (or to not choose at all), “badness” (or, disobedience to a good God) is without meaning and God would be unjust to punish it. Instead failure to do good would be a design flaw, which might point to an inept or corrupt designer (God). Therefore, Adam and Eve were created free in the truest sense. Since they were truly free moral agents, they were responsible for their actions. They sinned, and the consequences affected the world and all people who descended from them. All humans born since the fall are sinful, blind, and are “dead in our trespasses” (Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:13).

Unlike Adam, who was previously untainted by sin, our tendency is already toward sin. Therefore, we must be drawn by God and given the ability to see his light/goodness/beauty. Then we are “made alive” by his grace and in response to his love. This results in new birth and the ability to understand and desire good for God’s glory, and experience the joy that God gives (in shadows now while we still live in this world, and fully when our salvation is one day realized in heaven).

Third, sin made it possible for God to show himself more fully to his fallen creatures (humans) who were originally created with the capacity to know him. Without sin, we never would have known some most important aspects of God’s character: his grace, forgiveness, longsuffering, sacrificial love, and mercy. Indeed we would have never known Christ or had need of him. Therefore, the second person of the Trinity and/or his nature would have remained a mystery and we would have never needed his presence with us as Emmanuel and Savior.

Finally, sin and suffering must be viewed in perspective of the exceeding great joy God has in store for those who he has called in heaven. This is a joy that, by comparison, FAR outweighs the pain we experience on this side of eternity. The greatest suffering we experience here will be a faint memory for us in heaven—if, that is, we can remember it at all. Even in this world we experience this phenomenon in a much less-significant way, as in the case of women who endure the pain of pregnancy and childbirth (part of the curse after the fall) soon forget it at the sight of their new baby.

There are even more ways that God uses pain in our lives. As a perfect Father, he grows us and makes us more like Christ as we “share his sufferings.” He reveals himself to us as we seek him and rely on him. He corrects us, heals us, comforts us, and uses us to bless others. Am I saying that suffering is good, and by extension, that sin is good? No. Not in themselves. But as they drive us—flawed people in a fallen world—toward God who allowed them to occur, even they can be used for his glory and our good; both here and in heaven. In this way, “there is beauty in the fall of man.”

The Miraculous Necklace

Ok, so my attempt to demonstrate the virtual impossibility of life beginning by accident might have flopped. If you were at Providence Sunday, you know I wore an orange and white necklace that my son made for me. I told everyone that he put it together randomly and I noticed it just happened to spell out Genesis 1:1 in Morse code. Then I spent WAY too much time showing the statistical ridiculousness of such a feat! At the end I said, "If you believe this (that Drew put the necklace together by random chance), I have a piece of ocean-front property here in Tennessee I'd like to sell you!"

Just in case you're still unclear: Drew DID make the necklace, but he spelled out Gen. 1:1 in Morse code ON PURPOSE. It was JUST AN ILLUSTRATION! I hope that those of you who didn't get my poor attempt to use satire in order to "illustrate absurdity by being absurd" will forgive me. I should have been clearer. On the other hand, maybe my argumentum ad absurdum will help you remember that believing in a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life is MUCH MORE ABSURD than believing Drew accidentally made the necklace that spelled Gen. 1:1, and takes MUCH MORE FAITH than believing in a Creator God.

I’ve had a lot of good laughs with some who, for one reason or another, thought the necklace was a miracle! Thanks for putting up with me trying to be a little creative.

Here’s the stats (for those of you who have asked) on the necklace: The odds that Drew would put 102 beads in the right sequence to spell out Gen.1:1 in Morse code is one in 5x10^30


By comparison, the chances of winning the powerball jackpot is roughly 1 in 1x10^8 (about 1 chance in one-hundred million). That's roughly like filling half a basketball court 1 foot deep in pennies, marking one, and giving a blindfolded person one chance to pick the marked coin.

So I wondered, "how many pennies would it take to illustrate 5 x 10^30?" Bottom line…pennies are way too big. I went smaller. BBs were too big too. So I tried grains of sand.

There are 300,000 grains of sand per cu. in.

x 1728 cu. in. per cu. foot. (518,400,000 grains)

x 27,878,400 sq. ft. per sq. mi.

x 198,000,000 sq. mi. of surface area on entire earth including oceans.
The resulting number is not even close! So I went deeper with the sand covering the world... starting with the depth of empire state building. Still not close! Finally I got it. The sand has to be about 1,500,000 feet deep (284 miles, or that's = 1032 empire state buildings stacked on each other) to get 1 in 5x10^30 (the chance that Drew could randomly make a necklace spell Gen. 1:1)!


Here's my point: Even THAT is not as impossible as the likelihood that life appeared without God. And the comparison is NOT EVEN CLOSE!

In order for life to have appeared spontaneously, there must first have been hundreds of millions of DNA molecules. Under perfect conditions, given the size of earth, it would take 1x10^243 billions of years for only one of these molecules to occur strictly by chance.

According to textbooks written by atheist, agnostic, (as well as theist) scientists, if all the chemical bonds of earth's simplest living creature were broken, the chance of its reassembly, even under ideal environmental and chemical conditions … is less than 1 in 10^100,000,000,000 (one chance in ten to the one-hundred billionth power), a number so large, to write the zeros out in standard notation would take every page of almost 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica.

Facts like these convinced Antony Flew (Oxford scholar and "most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century" according to the Dallas Morning News) who wrote the book, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind said, "What I think the DNA material…has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements to work together."

Be sure to come This Sunday. Dr. Marc Bodenheimer (one of our elders and an eye surgeon), will be teaching as we tackle Genesis 1 and the creation of humankind. That's what all the other days have been leading up to. What does it mean to be human? Come and hear!