Re-Thinking God: God is Holy

First people have to understand one things bout what the definition of holiness is not and what it is: it is not 'wholly other' and it does indeed have to do with behavior and righteousness. See the following posts and then come back, don't worry the post will still be here.

The 'Wholly Other' God and Other Nonsense

Definition of Holiness in response to a guy named Michael

You know today it is the fifth anniversary of the 'Wholly Other' post but I still feel the same about the subject. Imagine that, guess I have been re-thinking God for a long time.

That said and having read all that (you have read it haven't you?) I began to see God's holiness not as something different but something follow as an example. God becomes the definition of what it means to be morally pure and right in action.

This remains the one attribute that defines God more than any other. In heaven around the throne this is what is said -- "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is filled with his glory." It is this attribute that saved the God of the Bible for me. Why? Because i began to realize that it is because of this purity God has the right to define what is pure and what is not. When he places the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden He knows exactly what is what. It is not for me to define it but Him. Letting God define evil means that His actions are not evil and if I were to do those same actions with the same motivation as Him, it would be without sin.

Simple put, we as people like to play games with the definition of evil so that we can paint God as evil. But if we let God define evil and good then we have to submit to the fact that the highest likelihood is that when we look at God in the Scriptures and say "God is being evil" we are wrong in our understanding of evil. If we accept the fact that in all God's Biblical actions there is no sin or authoring of sin then the definition of sin we often use of "missing the mark" is wrong. God's actions are good and holy - morally pure.

So when God gets angry and destroys a nation of people or orders genocide, it is holy action. God is not being evil because his holiness would not allow him to act if the action were evil. Holiness defines who He is and what He does. That of course, leads us to God's Justice

Next: God is Just

Marriage and the Bible - Part 28 - The Major Prophets and Marriage Imagery

In the prophets there is no real changes in the rules of marriage although some things are reemphasized. In the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) some marriage imagery is used to illustrate the relationship God has with his people.


Isaiah 54 has some sharp marriage imagery where God talks to Israel calling her a forsaken wife but then he has restored her. Chapter 50 talks of divorce but saying that there is no certificate of divorce barring his way to his servant.


Jeremiah is far more in your face. Over and over he likens Judah and Israel to unfaithful wives who have become whores to foreign gods. This is particularly seen in Jeremiah chapter 3. He uses it again at the end of chapter 31 where he says he would create a new covenant unlike the first one - one in which he would change them to be faithful.


If Jeremiah was harsh, Ezekiel is off the chain. Chapter 16 of Ezekiel is completely about how God's two wives were not only unfaithful and whores but how they went out of their way to outdo the other nations in their harlotry. God even uses the death of Ezekiel's own wife as a sign of what is about to happen to the nation of Judah if they do not turn from this (Chapter 24).


Daniel does not invoke this imagery at all but does mention the whole wives/concubines issue.


In looking at all the imagery of the major prophets regarding marriage the one thing that is emphasized is faithfulness. God uses the image of what is supposed to be the hallmark of any marriage and then shows how Judah and Israel both have been like unfaithful wives. None of the major prophets will compare though to the singular image of Hosea.


Next: Hosea's Marriage

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 8 -- Job and Isaiah Naked

Job says several things about being naked but one is the most classic line about coming fro the womb naked and in nakedness we return to the dust. (Job 1:21). In using nakedness this way Job shows symbolically that we come into the world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Solomon does the same thing in Ecclesiastes 5:15 -- it is almost a quote of Job. In any case nakedness is sue to make a point and a good one.

The Bible does use nakedness to symbolize things that sometimes involves shame, sometimes vulnerability.

Isaiah 20 is an example of this: Isaiah is TOLD by god to strip naked and walk around naked for three YEARS. It is symbolic of how God is going to shame Egypt and Cush through the Assyrians and in this way God uses the prophet's actions to pronounce judgment on Egypt and Cush. Much the same thing happens in Isaiah 47 about Babylon as far as judgment although there is no record of Isaiah walked around naked. In short God is saying -- I am going to expose you for what you really are -- powerless against me. Other verses about nakedness in Isaiah demonstrate need and the neediness of people that are oppressed. There is also one verse about the comfort of a mother's breasts in 66:11 (see previous post)

I wonder what the modern proponents that all nakedness is sinful do with this passage: Here is someone who walks around naked for three years AT GOD"S DIRECTION! I don't know I am beginning to wonder if the same of nakedness is so much about physical nakedness or a state of spirit. Isaiah is naked but I doubt he himself has any shame about it -- He is being obedient to God so why would he be ashamed of his nakedness? Creates a problem doesn't it when God asks you to be naked before him?

Next: Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 2 -- Bart's Bible is Not Mine

The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.

Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.

In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.

A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.

Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.

Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter Three

God's Problem by Bart Ehrman continues with more of the same in chapter three -- More Sin and More Wrath: The Dominance of the Classical View of Suffering. Here he continues to pound the idea that the classical view of suffering is the main view in Scripture

The Agreements I have with this chapter are few but here they are:

1. That suffering is the result of disobedience to God is a dominate view of Scripture -- I don't deny this. It is not the only one but the fact remains it is quite common for a Biblical writer to point to God's wrath for disobedience as a reason for suffering.

2. In the Old Testament law, religion is primarily about worship of God properly. I am a little non protestant here in that I feel works do play some role in salvation (not to merit it, but to show it). Everything Moses writes does indicate -- don't do things wrong do them right in the right way.

3. I too have questions about Isaiah 53 in relationship to the Messiah and Jesus. The prophet Isaiah does call this suffering servant Israel. Christians have universally said this is Christ but in the original context this would not have been considered. This make Isaiah 53 more complicated that it first appears.

4. That God eternally punishing people in hell is a problem that seems to contradict the love of God. Of all the problems related to evil this is still the one that bothers me the most and one I still struggle with. Bart deals with this at length in later chapters so I will hold off for now.

Next: Disagreements with Chapter Three