For context here are two posts to another blog www.beforeiforget.co.uk/2008/holynotes which sparked this posting, the first is one I wrote, the second is the blog owner’s reply.  This is not a simple issue, so please, stick around:

www.xanga.com/temsmail
Wrote the following comment on August 21st, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I’ll write more about the Jealous God in my xanga in a couple of days; just a quick note for now.

Use your Internet connection to go to this website www.blueletterbible.com, and search on the words “jealous God” in the modern version of your choice, and see what the Bible says about God being jealous!

Should a husband be jealous over his unfaithful wife? I would be, and God is jealous when we turn our affections to Gods which are no gods at all. When we disobey we deserve punishment from a righteous God.

If God were not righteous, he could tolerate sin and evil. But God is a righteous God, and His righteousness cannot tolerate sin and evil.

Okay, now imagine for a moment that YOU get to decide what level of sin and evil are tolerable. Where do you draw the line? A petty white lie? A malignant lie intended to defraud? A simple slap in the face? A simple shiv in the back, a gun shot to the face? How “little” a sin is too small to punish?

Because God is righteous and just, He must punish sin. Jesus died to take the punishment for our sin (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Romans 5:6-10) and to pay the penalty we could not pay, in our place. Thank you, JESUS!

Author: Simon Jones
Comment:
If your wife was unfaithful Tim, would you take her outside and cut her throat leaving her on the street to bleed out and die? That completes your analogy does it not?

So God is a jealous God. Nice, because jealously is such a beautiful quality in anyone. But then it does explain why God would be so openly hateful I guess.

When I look at the stars, a sunset, a seahorse, or a leaf I don't see hate or jealousy. I see the breadth of beauty which is about as far removed from hatred and jealousy as I know. I can't help but think that those traits would seem to be more inline with the heart of man. No temple, regardless of its beauty, can match the awe of a sunset or the depth of space, yet I am to believe that a God capable of such limitless creative power would choose to place a stifling limitation on the ability of those whom he created to know him. Such a notion seems to contradict his power and presence; it is an absurdity that I am struggling to fathom.

_________________________

So, okay, here is my take on the “God of justice/ God of love” thing.  I’m going to use some references from Norman Geisler I have loaded onto my computer.  This is not a simple thing, and there is more than one issue at stake, so hang in there with me please.

There are sincere and well meaning people who think and believe that God can only act in loving ways.  Their definition of a loving God seems to mean that God would never punish sin, or at least He would never punish people who have never heard the Gospel message and so they don’t know that they have sinned/ are sinners.  These people are thinking and caring individuals, who cannot conceive in their minds a God that could send people to Hell, if Hell even exists.

The last item may be the easy part of this.  If there is a Heaven, there must logically also be Hell; if there were no Hell, then Heaven would have to include such people as Adolf Hitler, Iddi Amin, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Dong, among other very bad people.  But,

God does not create people in order to destroy them. God loves “the world” (John 3:16), and Christ died “for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Indeed, Christ’s blood “bought” even those who deny Him (2 Peter 2:1). And God “is not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). There is a hell, but it was not prepared for human beings. Jesus said it was “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41).^[1]

Of course, it is not God’s directive will that anyone be judged, but in His sovereign will He has appointed (“made”) that even judgment on sin will magnify Him. Nonetheless, God “desires all men come to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Even the “vessels of wrath” were only “prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22) because they refused to repent, since God patiently “endured [them] with much longsuffering,” waiting for them to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).

In brief, God’s prescriptive will is that all be saved. His permissive will is that some be lost (those who refuse to repent). And God’s providential will is that He will bring ultimate good, even out of evil. In this sense, all things are made for (i.e., appointed by) Him.^[2]

Now, about those who never heard the good news; Simon seems to assume that people who have never heard of Jesus are innocent.  This is incorrect.  Ignorance does not equal innocence.  They may be ignorant of Jesus, but are not innocent of sin: Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  Here “all” includes those who knew of Jesus and those who never heard.  There are many more, but this is simple, direct, and adequate.

As a matter of fact, Abraham never heard of Jesus, Moses never knew Jesus (by that name), God’s name never fell from Esther’s lips, and Ruth adopted the God of her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16).  And yet, all of these are heroes of the faith.  Personally, I only know Jesus through the descriptions of Him, accounts of His actions, and the words of other people (the Bible).  I do have the advantage of looking back on history, but those heroes of the faith were looking forward to history in the same way I look back on it: in faith. 

Is it just (fair) for God to hold people accountable for sin?

The love of God as a cause of the atonement is seen in the most familiar passage in the Bible: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). But the justice of God also required that God find a way that the penalty due to us for our sins would be paid (for he could not accept us into fellowship with himself unless the penalty was paid). Paul explains that this was why God sent Christ to be a “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25) (that is, a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath so that God becomes “propitious” or favourably disposed toward us): it was “to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (Rom. 3:25). Here Paul says that God had been forgiving sins in the Old Testament but no penalty had been paid—a fact that would make people wonder whether God was indeed just and ask how he could forgive sins without a penalty. No God who was truly just could do that, could he? Yet when God sent Christ to die and pay the penalty for our sins, “it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).^[3]

Simon also asked about the truth in other religions such as Islam, Hindi, and Buddhism because surely those people are also sincere in their faiths.  Simon’s ideas don’t work for several reasons.

First of all, sincerity is not a good test of truth. Many people can and have been sincerely wrong about many things (Prov. 14:12).  Some people sincerely think the world is flat; does their sincerity make it true?

Second, all truth is exclusive, sincere or otherwise. The truth that “two plus three equals five” is very exclusive. It does not allow for any other conclusion. The same is true of value statements, such as “Racism is wrong” and “People should not be cruel.” These views do not tolerate any alternatives.  For example, if humanism is true, then all non-humanisms are false. If atheism is true, then all who believe in God are wrong. Every truth claim excludes its opposite (the law of the excluded middle). Hence, if Jesus is the only way to God, then there are no other ways. This is no more exclusive claim than any other truth claim. The question is whether the claim is true.

Third, that Christianity denies that other religions are true.  While the Bible does say: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me,’” (John 14:6), nowhere does Jesus, or the Bible in general, deny that there is some light in their teachings.  For example, the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) is found in 21 major world religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm), though in different phraseology.

Fourth, Jesus and the NT clearly and repeatedly emphasize that Jesus is the only way of salvation. (1) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). (2) Jesus also claimed He was the door (John 10:9), insisting that “he who does not enter the sheepfold by the Door … the same is a thief and a robber” (v. 1). (3) The Apostle Peter added, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). (4) And Paul contended that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).[4]

Now let me talk about the “jealous” thing. 

Simon sees jealousy as a purely negative thing, and yet it is not.  Jealousy is the appropriate emotion, sometimes.  No, I would not slit my wife’s throat!  Simon picked up on the fact that I used an allegory; in fact it is an allegory used in the Bible:  Ephesians 5:31-33   ³¹ FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.  ³² This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.  ³³ Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.[5]

God’s justice is perfect, mine is not.  God’s justice is faultless; mine is perverted, twisted by the Fall.  The jealousy of God is just and righteous, mine is twisted and perverted.  When Israel played the harlot, what was God’s response?  Do you suppose He was jealous?  What did God do about it? 

Two things; first God’s Word says Malachi 2:16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously," (NASB).  God HATES divorce.  In the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, divorce is like a man covering himself with a garment of wrong. 

But watch this: God, who hates divorce, is Himself divorced!  Jeremiah 3:8 "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also," (NASB).  God divorced Israel because of their unfaithfulness.  God was so very jealous for the affections of His people, that in the allegory of marriage between God and His people, He also used the allegory of having divorced them because they were unfaithful. 

At the very end of his blog reply to me, Simon said this: “No temple, regardless of its beauty, can match the awe of a sunset or the depth of space, yet I am to believe that a God capable of such limitless creative power would choose to place a stifling limitation on the ability of those whom he created to know him. Such a notion seems to contradict his power and presence, it is an absurdity that I am struggling to fathom.”

Simon said he is struggling with the idea that the limitless God would place stifling limits on the people He created.  The answer for this, I think, is in Genesis 1:26  -- Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth," (NASB).  We, people, are made in the image of God, Imagio Deo.  In this we are different from the animals; no animal was made Imagio Deo.  Even though we are Imagio Deo, we are definitely not God even though we bear His imprint.  For example, we are powerful but God is omnipotent (we are limited); we have knowledge but God is omniscient (again we are limited); we are present but God is omnipresent (a further limit).  The greatest of gifts, Imagio Deo, is not the problem. 

God gave humans dominion over everything; the only limit, the only probation placed on man was not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was placed in the Garden.  But Adam and Eve could not abide that probation, and they sinned.  Was God at fault for their sin?  Clearly not: they chose.  The stifling limits were (are) the natural result of sin, and not just any sin; the sin of rebellion and disobedience.  Adam and Eve thumbed their noses at God and did what He commanded they not do, eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  Well, not just the tree of knowledge, but the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: Genesis 2:17 “… but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die,” (NASB). 

It appears to me that God limited mankind for our own protection.  Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness until they disobeyed God. Genesis 3:10-11 ¹⁰ He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." ¹¹ And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, (NASB)?”  Adam and Eve were not ashamed to be naked before each other, but to be naked before God.

I return now to where I began, to the God of love, to the God Simon accused of being openly hateful.

John 3:16-19 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. ¹⁷ "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. ¹⁸ "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹ "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil,” (NASB).

1 John 4:7-12, 16, 20 

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.  … 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. … 20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen,” (NASB).