‘Righteous Evil’: A Response to the Traditionalist
By Kevin Straub, Jan. 25, 2012
‘Righteous Evil’: A
Response to the Traditionalist
By K. Straub, Jan. 25, 2012
In discussion of the advancing light on the
character of God, THE TRADITIONALIST REMINDS US of how the Bible reads:
"‘I kill and I make alive,’ (Deut. 32:39). And who sent the flood,
destroyed Jericho, or....?”
RESPONSE OF THE 4TH ANGEL, sent to
shed the glory of God in the earth:
The traditionalist enjoys sharing many passages
such as we just read in Deut. 32:39.
The students of the advancing light quote them also. How about this one:
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].” Isa.
45:7.
Or how about this next one, which entirely confirms
the above:
[God speaks to David] “…because thou hast despised me,
and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the
LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,
and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight
of this sun.” 2 Sam. 12:10b, 11.
Is it thought that David’s wives, after being taken
by other men and treated as sex objects, under a theological system that
attributed such treatment to the direct action of God, are going to say “Praise
the Lord, He is good, His righteousness and mercy endureth forever?” How could they possibly think that this
was a GOOD God? To them, would He would be a misogynistic tyrant, the god of
and no more righteous than the culture to which they found themselves
subject.
We have to be very careful on this matter of what
we say about God. Here we are given a scripture verse from Deuteronomy to imply that God is a killer. The traditional view
holds it out to support the idea that God wields destructive power in a proactive sense, i.e., initiated
from within Himself and He does this at such a point in time and place as
determined by Himself, the “full cup.” God knows where the full mark is and
that is when He does the thing that is sung in the song displaying the
“motivate-by-fear” paradigm, “Awesome God”:
When He rolls
up His sleeves [to get busy in
destructive work]
He ain't just putting on the ritz
[He isn’t fooling around]
(Our God is an awesome God)
There's thunder in His footsteps [be afraid, be very afraid, lest He be coming
for you]
And lightning in His fists [with which He will personally smite the
wicked]
(Our God is an awesome God)
And the Lord wasn't joking
When He kicked 'em
out of Eden [actually they were
afraid and ran because they were lied to about God]
It wasn't for no reason
That He shed His blood [because God’s
wrath was avenged on Jesus, the Father needed to be appeased through bloodshed,
human sacrifice]
His return is very close
And so you better be believing that
[or else]
Our God is an awesome God…
Judgment and wrath [by fiat order of fire from the
sky, creative power turned to destruction, the wielding of weapons of mass
destruction, as in carnal war]
He poured out on Sodom…[just like
that…God-did-it]
This song adequately expresses the traditional
paradigm as shown by my notations. We therefore have understandings that are in
diametric opposition.
The traditionalist is in opposition to the new view that has been prophesied to come
to God’s people. Those with the new view are amazed, filled with
admiration, as they marvel at the singular effectiveness of love alone without
any use of physical weaponry causing destruction and death. What about you, my
traditionalist friend? Are you “breaking out in triumph?”
If you are fighting against this message, you have nothing to invoke jubilation
and rapture within your soul. There is no breakthrough in maintaining the
status quo, such as you are doing. There has to be something in your teaching
that would reflect a sent message
regarding the character of God which is stretching your mind into new
territory. But search as you may, it will be found that you are not holding
anything that could be considered “new views of truth” regarding the “character
and attributes of God,” much less anything to cause the heart to soar in wonder
and declare His “awesomeness.” But we
can do that. We “break out in
triumph” in that we see how He wins a tremendous, universal war of ideology
without ever firing a shot, but by pure demonstration of the principles of agape love, such a love that dies for
its enemies rather than harm them, ever. Now, I am not making any of this up:
“…my prayer to God was that the power of the enemy
might be broken and that the people who had been in darkness might open their
hearts and minds to the message that
God should send them, that they might see the truth, new to many minds, as old truth in new framework. The understanding of the people of God has
been blinded, for Satan has misrepresented the character of God. Our
good and gracious Lord has been
presented before the people clothed in the attributes of Satan, and men and
women who have been seeking for truth have so long regarded God in a false light that it is difficult to dispel the cloud that obscures His glory [character]
from their view….” FW 81.1.
“At no period of time has man learned all that can
be learned of the word of God. There are
yet new views of truth to be seen, and much to be understood of the character
and attributes of God,--His benevolence, His mercy, His long
forbearance, His example of perfect obedience. ‘And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth.’ This is a most valuable study,
taxing the intellect, and giving strength to the mental ability.
After diligently searching the word, hidden
treasures are discovered, and the
lover of truth breaks out in triumph….” FE 444.2.
What she is speaking about in these passages is the
very subject that is coming to the forefront and maturing into a full message
in the times in which we are now living. The “new views of truth” that are to
be understood are specifically concerned with the “character and attributes of
God.” Every Seventh-day Adventist needs to be engrossed in this topic, laying
aside every other study. Getting the character of God right will open up the
understanding in all other subjects. It is a “most valuable study” that builds
intellectual muscle. God tells us this directly through His messenger, as we
have read.
“New views of truth” never come easily to those
immersed and entrenched in established institutionalized thinking, which is
exactly what denominationalism is by its very nature. We understand that we
must meet heavy resistance, in particular from those in leadership. This
thought is shared as a gentle warning not to expect your teachers and pastors
to help you advance in the study of the character of God, because they already
have their teaching on the subject and expect to keep the flock in line with
orthodoxy. They view this as their role. In discussion on this very subject of
the advancing light on God’s character, we have heard the conference man tell
us, in a private meeting, in person, 1“We have to teach what the
church teaches.”
_________
1”The church,” in their thinking, would apparently be
the hierarchy of authority in which
they have implicit faith as the medium that channels the voice of God. We do
not believe this. We have a more simple understanding that the church is every
person who hears the voice of God as individuals. We do not believe that the
lack of a human hierarchial power and economic
structure means that His church has no nucleus and is a scattering of
“independent atoms.” The Head of the church is Christ and He teaches the church
by His Spirit without having to be mediated by human committees, rule books and
worldly corporate law for purposes of tax free status. None of this is to say
that He does not raise up teachers and elders, etc., or have a unified body in
the earth. He does. Yet it is the responsibility of each individual to trust
God, not teachers and elders, so they must investigate for themselves, as good Bereans (Acts 17:11)
to see if the truth is being taught. This is the course of action that
scriptures call “noble,” “honorable” (Acts
17:11, 12), and “approved” (2 Tim. 2:15).
It can be expected that the establishment will come in to cause trouble in any
independent line of investigation (Acts 17:13)
Under the heading: “Many Adventists Brace Themselves Against the
Light” it is written, again with regard to a message to come:
“There is to
be in the [Seventh-day Adventist] churches a wonderful manifestation of the
power of God, but it will not move upon those who have not humbled themselves
before the Lord, and opened the door of the heart by confession and repentance.
In the manifestation of that power which
lightens the earth with the 2glory of God, they will see only something which in their
blindness they think dangerous, something which will arouse their fears, and
they will brace themselves to resist it. Because the Lord does not work
according to their ideas and expectations they will oppose the work. ‘Why,’ they
say, ‘should we not know the Spirit of God, when we have been in the work so
many years?’--RH Extra, Dec. 23, 1890. LDE 209.3
“The 3third angel's message will not be comprehended, the
light which will lighten the earth with its glory will be called a false light,
by those who refuse to walk in its advancing
glory.--RH May 27, 1890.” LDE 210.1
In this confrontation of the traditional belief
system with the advancing light on God’s character, the traditionalist is
presented with options. Such a one can:
1. “go the distance” with our view, that is, determine by investigation if
traditional thought can bring peace and satisfaction, while maintaining
Biblical integrity in its answers to the questions that are posed, or;
2. avoid the work and trouble, dismiss the discussion with a wave of the
hand and label it as heresy, deeming it ridiculous, clinging even more tightly
to the traditional paradigm, or;
3. throw up one’s arms in the air in confusion and give up
on any hope of understanding the scriptures or God, avoid the discussion, or go
out into the world.
_________
2“The glory of God is His character.” ST, September 3, 1902 par. 6
3When the “third angel’s message” is spoken of in
the context of the message that “lightens the earth with the glory of God” in
power, it is a reference to the fourth angel work of Rev. 18, which is a repeat
of the three angel’s messages, under the latter rain outpouring which is to
perform the task of closing up the work in the earth, ending the great
controversy. The term “third angel’s message” refers to the package of truths
contained in all the messages of the three angels. They are built on the
platform of the righteousness of God, as brought to the Advent people in 1888
and rejected. This historical study is important for believers to undertake
today and I recommend a reading of Ron Duffield’s The Return of the Latter Rain to get the true history. Most of what
is promoted today is a revisionist history. The fourth angel work and message
not only gives added impetus and power to the established truths but includes
also “the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the
churches since 1844” (EW 277.1) and,
most importantly, it sets forth the advancing light on God’s character, the
“glory of God.”
God has promised light to those who seek Him with
all their heart, so He will not give up the honest
seeker to the third option. The souls that take the second option are
automatically disqualified from the discussion by choice and as earth’s history
draws to a close, will find themselves increasingly sidelined in the work of
giving the last message of mercy to the world. There is only one correct choice
that qualifies as valid inquiry and to take this nobler approach, which is the
God-ordained approach, there must be an honest and probing appeal to the
scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy, employing a hermeneutic derived
primarily from the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ.
So, in putting this quote of Deuteronomy 32:39 on the table in this fashion, it is apparently
implied that we are to consider it a valid understanding that God kills proactively because it is in His character to do just
that. There is no need to be shy about it, Mr. Traditionalist, because you
are in good company! But now it is time to do some learning as well as some
unlearning and God will help you do that. What I am bringing under the
microscope here in these few thoughts is the traditional Adventist theology as published in the official church
papers such as Signs of the Times; as
found in books such as Steve Wohlberg’s The Character of God Controversy; as
held forth from top theologians such as Frank Holbrooke of the Biblical Research Institute and as
preached by leading media ministries evangelists such as Doug Batchelor of Amazing
Facts.
In the traditional view, it is to be understood
that God kills only when He can do so righteously,
when the circumstances call for it, according to Divine judgment. In the
traditional view, God’s statement, “I
kill,” as mentioned before, is presented in the sense that He does so proactively, by direct executive action.
This begs some questions, such as that if this is true, then:
· Why would we not read, Isa. 45:7,
“I create evil,” in the same way?
· Is there anything in the contexts of these two passages that would
indicate that there are two different principles operating?
· Can the traditional theology clearly point us to them or provide us any
Biblical keys that would show us how to make a differential application of
dichotomous principles?
At the same time, while it is maintained that God
can only kill when He can do so righteously, we would have to apply the
principle that He can only create evil
when He can do so righteously. Phrased another way, as the
traditional view must admit that God kills in righteousness, so also must He
create evil in righteousness. I know that for those who are on their
toes and following closely, this is really getting into a thorn patch, but I’m
not done yet. It’s about to get even more prickly!
Stay with me as we bring in the third text: Now
that we have a principle established we can apply it to our reading of the
passage that says He gave up innocent women to be sexually abused. This must be
an example of the righteous evil raised up and performed by God. God says
through Isaiah that He “creates evil” and in 2 Samuel 12:11 the prophet records that He
“raised up evil.” These both have to
function in the same way. They have to be done in righteousness. I leave this to
percolate for a moment.
Believers in God trust that the scriptures – ALL
scriptures -- are given so that we may understand Him better and grow to love,
trust and serve Him with gladness of heart. I would presume He would have
intended also for those wives to know and understand Him by the same things --
that He kills and creates evil -- because He loves them just as much as He
loves us. He would want them to understand how it was that God was raising up
the evil that was perpetrated on them.
Is there something that is troubling or unsettling
in all of this? Why? Can you not apply the same principle in one (“I kill”) as
in the other (“I create evil”)? Why not? Where is the evidence that He may kill proactively but when the language
changes to creating evil, it is no
longer by executive action, but by giving over to external forces? Is there not
some arbitrary assignment taking place, here? The traditionalist is obliged to
answer these things, for he/she must also believe that the truth can afford to
be examined closely and stand up to the litmus test of not only logic and
reason, but it must also appeal to and agree with the Bible, the Spirit of
Prophecy. Most of all, it must harmonize with Christ’s life, teachings, death
and resurrection. “The church has always taught it,” is not acceptable. Don’t
even think to go there.
The problem here is that He kills proactively according to the standard view set forth in
its exegesis of Deut. 32:39 and we have no way of establishing in the text
that He creates evil by another principle than that by which He kills. This
would therefore be a human imposition, a private interpretation.
I believe that the traditionalist is compelled to
deal with the “elephant in the room” on this. I do not believe that in the
traditional paradigm there is any sensible, logical, way to sort these things
out except that arguments are produced that are not found in the scriptures nor
are they found in Christ. I believe, on the other hand, that we have scriptural
principles given in clear statements and in Christ and that we
can take these and apply them across the board, to all of
scripture. There is evil evil in contrast to “righteous
evil”, and we can show the precise Bible keys whereby we may sort them out
according to the principles. This is what the true “character of God message”
does and it does it well, in my opinion.
In the traditional paradigm, if there is the case on one hand where God’s justice is handed
down in that He proactively destroys and
kills and if there is the
contrasting case on the other hand where justice is done in that He gives the wicked over to evil, to the
results of their choice, by “hiding His face,” (Deut. 31:17,18), then
the teacher of the standard theology should be able to set up two columns, according
to principles clearly delineated from scripture. He would place every
destructive act of God under either one or the other heading. The teacher of
the traditional view would be able to make these placements by clearly showing
the Biblical principle whereby the student would be able to follow along and
clearly identify every scenario as it is being read in the scriptures,
according to contextual clues. Everyone would be able make proper
classification, according to one or the other principle.
For example, we could say, “Where the Bible says
that ‘God slew Saul’ and we find that he committed suicide, we have the ‘giving
over’ principle in use; where we find the walls of Jericho falling, we have the
‘proactive destruction’ principle,” pointing to the identifying characteristics
in each case that would place them in one or the other category, according to
the Scriptural keys of interpretation wherein the teacher of the standard view
would have instructed us. (I would utilize them in this example if I knew what
they were.) This would be true exegesis. Anything less than an exegetical approach, or an application
of valid scriptural principle, as derived from the scriptures, would be an
appeal to whatever we think is best, reading
into the text, according to the
externally imposed principles of human logic and using external keys to
interpretation such as the dictionary. Anything less than true exegesis would
be inadmissible, private interpretation, eisegesis.
As mentioned above, there is also the approach that
opts out of the discussion and sidelines oneself by saying, “We can’t
understand it, it’s just one of those things that
we’ll have to find out in the kingdom.” But the kingdom is within us. Jesus is
teaching us. To say, “We can’t understand” the character of God, specifically
how it relates to how He punishes and destroys, is to deny Christ, the
scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
So here is the crux: The problem with all of this
is not that there is a righteous
killing and a righteous evil, but that it
is said that He kills proactively,
at His own discretion and determination, by direct manipulation of the elements
or by fiat. Unless the traditionalist can show otherwise, this would
necessitate that, by the same token, He creates evil proactively. This makes God an evildoer, which is
unrighteousness, obviously, so we have to “go back to the drawing board” on
this.
Walk with me, now: there is a sense in which God does kill and He does create evil. The scriptures say this, as we have read. In order
that we do not make God out to be an evildoer, we have to look at how God can both kill and create evil righteously.
This is where we find that God’s ways and thoughts are not anything like man’s
ways and thoughts, (Isa. 55:8,9). We also find that God’s wrath is not anything like
man’s wrath, (James 1:20). Therefore, we would have to reexamine the premise
upon which the two columns were created, as discussed above. It is found that
one of these columns is not valid, as it would be evil evil and therefore not attributable
to God. We are talking about the “proactively
destroying-God” column. We find that God’s acts of killing and destruction all
come under “the hiding of His face” from the sinner, the “giving up,” “giving
over,” or “sparing not” the sinner to the consequences of free choice. This
column can be called “righteous evil,”
in keeping with the Biblical parlance, as it would harmonize with the God who
said “I kill,” “I create evil” and Who did many things as expressed in this language,
such as “raising up evil” in David’s house, (2 Sam. 12:11), “hardening Pharoah’s
heart,” (Ex. 4:21), “sending the
flood,” (Gen. 6:17), “choosing
delusions” for the wicked, (Isa. 66:4)
or “sending strong delusions,” on those who do not love truth, (2 Thes. 2:10,
11), “sending evil spirits,” or “evil angels,” (Judges 9:23, Ps. 78:49),
“taking off their chariot wheels,” (Ex. 14:25)
and hundreds more of the same.
The Bible language which portrays God as doing that which He allows to play out to destructive ends
is one and the same as what I call “the language of wrath” and which I am here
calling “righteous evil.” In other words, “Biblical
language,” “the language of wrath,”
and “righteous evil,” would all be
synonymous terms, referring to the same principle that defines God’s wrath,
which is nothing like man’s wrath. Man cannot do righteous evil, only evil
evil. This is because man is not the Creator God and
Sustainer of Life. For one man to reject another man will not destroy him,
unless that other man is a tyrant and would kill him. This is how we have
viewed God, as if He were a man. For a man to reject God will destroy him, but not in the
same way. It is not God that will kill the man,
it is the nature of the rejection in that Life itself is being rejected. God
says, “Come to Me, for why will you die?” (Eze. 18:31, 32;
33:11; Matt. 23:37,38)
This principle keeps us in harmony with the testimony of Jesus, Who said, “I
did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them,” and of John, who tells us
that God is light and in Him is NO DARKNESS, AT ALL. It removes all the
contradictions that come of a surface reading or a private interpretation of
the scriptures and/or the Spirit of Prophecy. It lets us behold our God, Who is
unchanging in all His dealings with men; Who operates
always and absolutely upon pure and righteous principles that see Him only as a
Giver of Life; as a Giver of Himself, the Light/Life of men, (John 1:4).
Only by having a working principle in place that harmonizes all of the “language
of wrath” with the “no darkness” principle can we know Him aright.
“God does
not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against
transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to
reap that which they have sown.… The
destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are
trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine
mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin
and to the certain punishment that will
fall upon the guilty.” GC 36.1
Note that the destruction of Jerusalem goes under
the “hiding of His face” column in that He gave up Jerusalem to the destruction
that befell them under the Roman sword. This is the only mechanism that
describes the “certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.” There is no
“lightning in His fists.”
Practice reading through new eyes:
“Speak, Thus saith the
LORD, Even the carcases
of men shall fall as dung upon the open field, and as the handful after the
harvestman, and none shall gather [them].
“Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise [man] glory
in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the
rich [man] glory in his riches:
“But let him
that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment,
and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight,
saith the LORD.
“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all [them which
are] circumcised with the uncircumcised;” Jer. 9:22-25
Cross-reference with the following:
“Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn
ye from your evil ways; for why will ye
die, O house of Israel?” Eze. 33:11.
What do you see in these texts? Here’s what I see:
notice that in Jer. 9 we have death,
judgment and punishment in the context and God invites us to understand and
know Him. This would also mean that He wants us to know how it is that He
delights in all of these things. The judgment which results in the punishment
of death is in keeping with principles of righteousness and lovingkindness.
It is a judgment in which the Lord delights.
Yet, in Eze. 33:11
we have the clear statement that God has no pleasure, no delight, in the death
of the wicked. Their will to die is all their own. If God willed that they
should die, it would come from Him. His punishment, judgment upon them, and their resultant death is found only in the
principle of His letting them go to the results of their choice to follow other
gods which are no-gods and to follow the inclinations of their own hearts. He
delights in this in that His government stands true and perfect, because it is
founded and grounded in principles of freedom of choice and non-coercion and He
will ever have a universe entirely rid of rebellion, populated by sons and
daughters that serve Him and each other freely, with unspeakable joy and gladness.
He does not delight in the fact that some did not choose life and that in spite
of all that He did, giving His Son, He lost them in the end.
“Then my anger
shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide
my face from them, and they shall be
devoured, and many evils and
troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not
these evils come upon us, because our
God [is] not among us?
“And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have
wrought, in that they are turned unto
other gods.” Deut. 31:17,18.
In conclusion, I hope it is well understood why I
have to ask any person who would come back with a one line retort such as we
have discussed in this study, that is seemingly posed with the chin up and the
jaw thrust out in defiance, saying, “God says, ‘I kill’…So who sent the flood?….”
I have to ask, “Are you willing to examine some
properly developed and supported answers from our view?”
It will take a commitment of time and effort, on
your part, to delve into articles, discussions and such. Would you
answer the questions I would ask you, such as I have asked, above? Would
you read a book? These will answer the questions you ask, but if they are asked
with the attitude that this “new” view couldn’t possibly be right and you would
only want to hear what we have to say so that you may rebut, cavil, snort, and
defend the status quo, then it would not be fair that you ask me to spend my
time explaining why I am settled and sure in the new view, for you would not be
prepared to engage in a genuine undertaking. You will have then written
yourself off in “option two.” I am looking for “option one” people.
Your call.