Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

Legalism: The Biggest Threat to Church Unity

By Jeremy Myers
55 Comments

Legalism: The Biggest Threat to Church Unity

There is no greater threat to the unity of the church than legalism.

These are strong words, but history, tradition, experience, and Scripture reveal that where legalism spreads, disunity prospers.

Thankfully, God has provided an antidote to legalism through the free gift of eternal life which is received by grace along through faith alone in Christ alone.

legalism threat to unityJust as legalism breeds disunity, love and unity flourish where grace and faith multiply. The more we emphasize grace and faith, the greater our unity will be. For this reason—and simply for the sake of the truth—a strong stance on the simplicity and freeness of eternal life by grace alone through faith alone is essential.

To see this, it is important first of all to know what legalism is.

Legalism Defined

Lots of people have heard about legalism, but few know what it is. Here is a basic definition of legalism:

Legalism is when people use the law of God in an attempt to gain favor with God.

legalism definedAt it’s core, legalism believes that God is angry with humanity, and that the way to make God like us again is to obey His laws. And if everybody could just obey God’s laws all at the same time, then God might love us and be happy with us again, and blessings from heaven will flow down upon us once more.

So at it’s core, legalism has some seriously faulty views about God, about sin, about the law, and about how people can get into a good relationship with God. All of these faulty views are what makes legalism so dangerous and divisive.

Legalism is Dangerous

Legalism is dangerous because it begins with the premise that God is mad at us and He gave us His law so that we could get back into His good favor.

But if Jesus tells us anything about God, it is that He is NOT angry with us. To the contrary, He loves us deeply and longs for nothing more than to reconcile us to Himself (2 Cor 5:19). It is not He who needs to be reconciled to us, but we to Him. In other words, He is not the one who has abandoned us; we have abandoned Him. It is not He who left us, but we who left Him.

By sending Jesus to this earth, God bridged the divide that we placed between Him and us. Out of His great love for us, He has come to where we are, because He knew that we would never (and could never) come to Him.

But the basic premise of legalism contradicts all this. Legalism teaches that we have offended God so deeply that He is angry with us… He even hates us… and so we must try to please and appease God by doing things He likes so that maybe, somehow, hopefully, God will love us once more.

Not only is such legalistic theology terribly wrong, it becomes terribly divisive.

Legalism is Divisive

Legalism is divisive because as soon as one person thinks that they are starting to obey God’s law and make God happy with us again, that person begins to think that the reason God is still angry with the world is not because of his or her sin, but because of everyone else’s. So if everyone else would just clean up their life and start obeying God, then God will start to love us again. As soon as legalists begin to make some headway in their own life in the “Obedience to the Law” department, they set themselves up as a manager in the department, and try to get everybody else to follow the rules as well.

But this isn’t the most dangerous or divisive element to legalism. What makes legalism so divisive is that nobody actually thinks they are legalistic.

Though there are countless Christians who are legalistic, you will never meet anyone who claims to be a legalist. This is what makes legalism so sinister. It sucks the life out of Christians who believe they stand for the truth of Scripture and the Gospel. Legalism run madly toward death, all the while thinking they are pursuing life.

legalism and obedienceSince nobody believes that they are legalistic, everybody believes they have a healthy balance between law and grace, between faith and good works. A legalist then, is anyone who places a greater emphasis on law and good works than you do. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we criticize those who take grace too far. Those people are licentious, we think. They place too much emphasis on grace and in so doing, give people license to sin.

In this way, since only “other” people are legalists, and each of us is only trying to get people to obey God and live within the principles of the Kingdom of God, the hidden legalist in each of us (myself included!) becomes judgmental, critical, and divisive in our treatment of others. Legalism tears Christians apart because it sets up laws and rules as the means by which we maintain relationships between one another and between ourselves and God. And part of the divisive nature of legalism is that nobody can agree on the rules that must be observed. Everybody has different rules and regulations that must be maintained in order to fellowship with someone else.

Legalism’s Antidote

So what is the cure? What is the fix? What is the antidote to legalism?

Since legalism is so sinister, and since it is so hard to define, one might think that combating legalism is not worth the effort. Some might be tempted to think that it is not legalism that divides Christians, but the struggle against legalism that causes the problems. If some people are legalistic and others are licentious, wouldn’t it be better, for the sake of unity, to just throw up our hands, shrug our shoulders, and say “Live and let live”?

No, I don’t think so. Why not? Because Scripture seems intent on combating legalism wherever it is found. If legalism is one of the greatest threats to Christian unity, and legalism is found in every one of us, and Christian unity is something we should strive for, then legalism is worth fighting against.

In fact, it could be argued that much of the New Testament was written to combat legalism. Jesus fought against the legalism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles fought against legalism in Acts (e.g., Acts 15), and the Apostle Paul fought against legalism in most of his letters. So if they fought against legalism, we should to.

breaking the bonds of legalismHow? Most people try to combat legalism with a different form of legalism. I have seen arguments break out between a behavioral legalist and a doctrinal legalist. The first person thinks we make God happy by what we do, while the second person argues that we make God happy by what we believe.

I think it is time to back away from all of these rules and regulations, and look at how the Bible seems to combat legalism. And how is that? By emphasizing grace as much as possible.

One reason legalism is so divisive is that Christians seem so intent on putting limits and restrictions on grace. The moment we set limits to God’s boundless grace is the moment we wrap ourselves in the dark bonds of legalism, but the moment grace is unleashed and unchained, legalism shrivels up and dies.

So what is the antidote to legalism? Grace. Radical grace.

Do your best to never limit or restrict grace in any way. Let grace be extended to point of shamefulness. Let us live indiscriminate, shocking, outrageous, scandalous, senseless, irrational, unfair, irreligious, ridiculous, absurd, offensive, infinite, free grace.

Let us live life as a contest to see who can be the most gracious, loving, kind, and forgiving, and teach others to do the same. If we are going to follow the example of Jesus (and of God), we must extend grace to the point that people accuse us being friends to tax-collectors and sinners, to the point that they complain of how we allow people to get away with anything, of how we liberally shower blessings upon friends and enemies alike, and how we even show love and mercy upon those who wish to do us harm.

Such outrageous grace is what God shows us, and how we can live toward others. This kind of grace is the antidote to the legalism in all of us.

This post was part of the November 2018 Synchroblog.

Here is the list of other writers and authors who contributed to this month’s Synchroblog. Go read them all to see what others think about church unity.

  • Heathens and Heretics – Glenn Hager
  • What have we Become? – Rocky Glenn
  • Unified Through Life – Jordan Hathcock
  • How Can Churches Exemplify Unity in a Divided Country? – Mike Edwards
  • Practicing Unity – Tim Nichols
  • Christian Unity – Joseph A.

God is Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: church unity, Discipleship, eternal life, free gift, free grace, grace, law, legalism, synchroblog, Theology of Salvation

Advertisement

Should I vote in the election?

By Jeremy Myers
16 Comments

Should I vote in the election?

Should you vote in the election? Should I vote in the election? This is the question that many Christians are asking.

The United States midterm elections are one week away. In light of this, I have begun to see more and more Facebook articles and Twitter messages instructing Christians to not vote.

I strongly object. I believe that Christians have an obligation and moral responsibility to vote.

should I vote

Yet since there are numerous arguments given for the idea that Christians should not vote, I want to address a few of these arguments in this post as a way of encouraging you to get out and vote this year. The article will close with a few suggestions or ideas about how to decide who to vote for.

Argument 1: We serve the Kingdom, and the Kingdom is not of this World

Some Christians argue that since we are citizen of the Kingdom of God, and this Kingdom is not of the world, we should not get involved in the politics and government of this world.

It is true that we are citizens of the Kingdom of God and that the Kingdom is not of this world.

But what these Christians who say this seem to forget is that while the kingdom if not of this world, it is definitely for this world. The Kingdom of God has come down from heaven to earth in the person and work of Jesus Christ to transform this world so that God’s will is done on earth, just as it is in heaven.

The kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God on earth. And while voting is not going to be the only way (or even the primary way) for the rule and reign of God to spread upon the earth, it is certainly one way that can help. Leaders of worldly governments who have similar goals and values as Jesus Christ can certainly do more for the Kingdom of God than can worldly leaders who value only power, riches, glory, and fame, all of which belong to the kingdom of darkness.

So one way for the Kingdom of God to come upon this earth is for us to be involved in politics so that we can affect change and move the kingdoms of this world a little closer to the Kingdom of God. Voting is the smallest and easiest way for this to happen. It shouldn’t be the only thing we do, but it is a start.

Argument 2: Jesus and Paul didn’t vote; so neither should we!

I am not making this argument up. I have heard people use it.

Yes, of course Jesus and Paul didn’t vote, but this was because the Roman Empire was not a democracy. Voting wasn’t an option for Jesus and Paul. They didn’t vote because they weren’t allowed to.

But this doesn’t mean that Jesus and Paul were apolitical, that they had no political views and never taught anything about the politicians or political climate of their day. Quite the contrary, both Jesus and Paul were outspoken about the abuses of those who held political power, and even called upon leaders to conform their rulings to the will and values of God. They also paid taxes and encouraged their followers to do so, as well as teaching them to obey the ruling authorities, who were place into their positions by God.

In light of these things, I believe that if Jesus and Paul had been given the opportunity to vote, they would have seen it as one more way to make their voice heard.

Furthermore, many of the people in Scripture whom God used greatly were involved in politics, and even raised up to such positions “for such a time as this.” Joseph helped saved millions of lives through his position in Egypt. King David and King Solomon led the nation of Israel into peace and prosperity. Daniel was a wise and godly counselor in the royal courts of Babylon. Esther used her position to rescue her people from annihilation.

So it is completely false to say that Jesus, Paul, or any of the godly people of Scripture were not involved in politics and would not vote. The opposite is actually true. God wants all of us to get involved in how this world is governed, whether it is in large or small ways. The smallest of these is voting, and if that is what you can do, then that is what you should do.

Argument 3: Politics is so divisive! It sickens me to get involved

Some Christians don’t want to vote because of how divisive politics have become. To get involved with the issues makes them feel dirty.

I understand the feeling. There is much filth in the realm of politics.

However, isn’t this exactly why we are here on earth? Isn’t the anger and malice that is found in much of the political realm the exact reason we should be involved?

Rather than retreat from the darkness, let us be a light in the darkness, providing a voice of love, hope, peace, healing, and forgiveness rather than hate and anger.

Voting, and getting involved in politics, provides an opportunity for us to show the world a better way of standing up for what we believe while peacefully disagreeing with others. So cast your vote, and do it with love toward those who have different views.

Argument 4: Jesus is My President!

I especially hear this during a presidential election. “I’m not voting,” the person says, “because Jesus is my President.”

Fine. I don’t disagree. Jesus alone is our only Lord, Ruler, King, and Master. Call Him your “President” if you wish.

Jesus for presidentBut what does this have to do with voting? Voting is not an oath of fealty. Voting is not a stamp of approval on everything the person you vote for has said and done, or will say and do. Voting is not a promise to obey, support, and defend everything this person says or does.

In fact, voting is the opposite of such things. Voting gives you the right to disagree and voice your disapproval.

I am so tired of people who do not vote feeling like they then have the right to criticize the decisions of the person in office. I feel that if you have the opportunity to choose who is in office by voting, and you forsake that right, then you should also forsake your right to oppose or criticize the decisions of those who are in office.

dont vote dont complainVoting is a way to make your voice heard. And if you don’t want to make your voice heard through voting, then you should also not make your voice heard after the voting is over. When you vote, according to the values and principles of your only sovereign, Jesus Christ, this is what gives you the subsequent right to raise your voice in prophetic warning about the poor decisions that the leaders are making, whether or not you voted for them.

So yes, Jesus is your president. And guess what? He’s calling you to vote … but not for Him. He doesn’t get put into office by voting. He is in His position for all eternity, regardless of which human is in which political office or role.

As Christians, we are invited by God to call our political leaders to follow the will and ways of God, and one way we can do this is by voting. If we love justice and mercy, then we are to be involved and active in every battle that helps bring more justice and mercy into the world. Voting and political activity is one way to make this happen.

Argument 5: My Vote Doesn’t Matter

I hear this all the time. “I don’t vote because my vote doesn’t matter. I’m just one small voice in a sea of people who disagree with me.”

I live in Oregon, which is mostly dominated by liberal Portland and the I-5 corridor down through Corvallis and Eugene. But other than these areas, most of Oregon is politically conservative. I think I heard that by numbers alone, the majority of Oregon is conservative.

Yet every election year, less than 25% of the conservative people come out to vote. Why? Because they think their vote doesn’t matter. They see the powerful and loud voting block in Portland and Eugene, and think, “There’s no way my little vote can overcome that giant.”

So they stay home.

And then they complain all the time about how Oregon passes terrible laws, such as the law that use our tax dollars to fund abortions.

But if even half of the people conservative parts of the state voted, they would be able to have more say and direction in the state, and might even gain a majority in the state congress.

I had a short twitter conversation about this very thing with my friend Dan Kent yesterday. Here is a bit of the thread:

[tweet 1056902724342685696 hide_thread=’true’]

[tweet 1056951075603795970 hide_thread=’true’]

[tweet 1056952493048037377 hide_thread=’true’]

[tweet 1056955840270225410 hide_thread=’true’]

[tweet 1056956230244003841 hide_thread=’true’]

[tweet 1056956437669273601 hide_thread=’true’]

I think that what Dan is saying is that if you feel strongly about the direction of our country and how it is led, you should do more than just vote. You should also raise your voice. And I agree with that.

Of course, I also think that if you didn’t vote, you have no right to raise your voice.

I think a vote is the very first word of you raising your voice to have a say in the direction and leadership of the country.

So should you vote? I say YES! Get out and vote.

your vote your voice

But who should you vote for?

I’m not going to tell you. That is, I’m not going to give you names or a political party to vote for. Instead, I will provide some values and ideas to help inform your decisions.

As Christians, we must look for candidates that help bring to reality the values that Jesus taught and lived. Especially those of Luke 4:18-19. Jesus said that He came to this earth to help the poor, heal the brokenhearted, give liberty to captives, restore sight to the blind, and set free those who are oppressed.

Obviously, all political candidates from all political parties claim that they will do these sorts of things. All candidates from all political parties in every political race I have ever seen or heard claims that they are fighting for the rights of the poor, the week, and forgotten, the neglected, the oppressed, and the overlooked.

Teaching of Jesus in Luke 4 If you really listen to what all candidates say, this is exactly the sorts of things they all promise.

So what are we to do?

The answer is to not look at what politicians say, but rather at what they actually have done. Nearly all politicians have a history of whether or not they have helped people. A state governor or senator doesn’t start out campaigning for that political office. They will have always worked their way up from smaller city or regional offices.

As a result, we can look at their history of what promises they have made, and whether or not they have actually kept these promises. We can look at the poor, the oppressed, the neglected, the forgotten, and the overlooked in the communities in which they served to see if, during their time in office, the conditions of these people got better or worse.

If conditions got worse, then this candidate does not deserve your vote. If they improved in tangible, verifiable, measurable ways, then maybe this candidate does deserve your vote. Again, all candidates will SAY things improved under their leadership, but you must verify the actual numbers and results to see if this is so.

Don’t just listen to the words that people say. What people DO is always more important than what they SAY. Politicians promise all sorts of things, but what they have actually done for the people they serve is the best indicator of whether you should vote for them or not.

Here are some questions to consider about any candidate:

-Is crime going down in the area in which they governed?

-Are homelessness and poverty levels decreasing?

-Is the unemployment level decreasing?

-Is the standard of living generally increasing?

-How do they respond toward political opponents? Do they call for violence and hate, or love and acceptance?

-What have they actually done (not promised to do!) to protect the weak and give a voice to the voiceless? This not only includes immigrants, but also the poor and sick of our own country, and especially the weakest and most voiceless of all: unborn children.

(I am not a single issue voter, but I have always wondered how any Christian can support the killing of unborn children. I agree that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, but a baby is not her own body. The body of the baby belongs to the baby. I am pro-choice for the baby as well. I want the baby to have a choice.)

Don’t think about such questions as a Republican or Democrat. Think about these questions from the perspective of a citizen of heaven, and how you can bring the will of God down to earth.

Let me be specific.

And for this, I’m going to talk about Trump.

I know I said I wasn’t going to tell you who to vote for, but he is not running for office this year, so I can talk about him.

Trump made many promises during his campaign in 2016. He promised to bring back jobs, reduce crime, move toward peace with various countries around the world (like North Korea), enact prison sentencing reform, increase the income of the average American, and help restore our health care system to take care of the sick and needy in our midst.

Since Trump had never held political office, it was difficult to know if he could be trusted to keep his promises, or if he even knew what he was talking about. But, regardless of what you think about him, he was elected as the President of the United States.

The past two years have shown that he did indeed know how to accomplish the things he promised. Here is a short list of how he has helped millions of people in the last two years:

  • Almost 4 million jobs have been created.
  • New unemployment claims at a 49-year low.
  • African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American unemployment is at an all-time low.
  • Women’s unemployment rate hit a 65-year low.
  • Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent (3.5% this quarter), higher than any time during the previous administration.
  • Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
  • 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
  • Small businesses have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
  • The FDA approved more affordable generic drugs, linking drug prices to the cheap drugs that people pay in other countries.
  • The Medicare program was revamped to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
  • Budgeted $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic, and have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent.
  • Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, showing support for Israel.
  • Re-worked trade deals with Mexico, Canada, and the EU
  • Helped improve communications between North Korea and the US, while bringing an end to the firing of test missiles by North Korea.
  • Began the process of reforming prison sentencing guidelines which have previously led to high incarceration rates among African-Americans.

This is the sort of thing I am thinking about in this article. These are tangible and positive benefits that have come from the Trump administration, all of which help the poor, neglected, sick, and needy of our country. Whether you like Trump or not, we can all agree that these positive benefits are good for the people of our country, which will also, in turn, be good for the entire world.

You can look for similar things in the politicians you vote for next week, and in future elections. Make sure you think through the issues. Don’t just vote Democrat or Republican because that’s what you’ve always done. Consider the facts and statistics, and make the best and most informed decision that you can. Then get out and vote, making your voice heard in a small but significant way.

When all the Christian voices add up, we make a decisive block of people who can let our voices be heard.

So should you vote? I say YES! Get out and vote!

go out and vote

This post is part of the October 2018 Synchroblog. See what others have to say about the topic of voting by reading the articles from the other contributors below:

  • Red, Blue, Green, or Neither? – Scott Sloan
  • Voting is Violence … So Vote! – Tim Nichols
  • Who Should we Vote For if We Vote At All? – Mike Edwards

God is Redeeming Life, z Bible & Theology Topics: politics, synchroblog, voting

Advertisement

Did the Flood of Genesis 6-8 really happen, and if so, did God really send it?

By Jeremy Myers
18 Comments

Did the Flood of Genesis 6-8 really happen, and if so, did God really send it?

The flood of Genesis 6-8 is one of the most troubling passages of Scripture due to its violent portrayal of God. In general, there are three approaches to understanding the flood event.

1. Resistance is futile! Assimilate or die!

This view says this about Genesis 6-8:

It happened exactly as the text says, and God is sometimes very violent. Deal with it. If you don’t like this, God will probably be even more violent toward you in eternity when you burn in hell. But I love God, so He’ll be nice to me. And even though God said He would never again destroy the earth with water (Genesis 8:21), in the future, God will send a flood of fire upon the earth to destroy everyone again (2 Peter 3:6-7).

the waters of the flood(Note: I include Greg Boyd’s “Divine Withdrawal” view in this category. He argues that God finally got fed up with the evil of mankind, and so He withdrew His divine hand of protection that was holding back the destructive floodwaters, thereby allowing them to destroy humanity. In this view, God didn’t do the destroying Himself; He simply stepped back to let the destroyer have its way with humanity. In a personal conversation with Greg Boyd, I related to him the following video clip, and he agreed that for the most part, it represents his position.)

2. Flood? What flood? We don’t need no stinking flood!

This second view says this about Genesis 6-8:

The account is some sort of myth. Maybe it complete fiction. Maybe it’s a fable of some sort that teaches a lesson about God’s hatred of sin. Maybe there was some sort of local flood that might have happened a long time ago, but it certainly didn’t cover the earth and kill everyone. Whatever happened (if anything happened at all), it didn’t happen as the text says.

People who hold this view also reject the historical accuracy of many other passages in Scripture as well. Some will even reject the historicity of the miracles of Jesus, including His resurrection.

I have never been comfortable with calling anything in Scripture an error, partly because such an approach often allows people to simply pick and choose which passages they like and which ones they don’t, consigning the texts they don’t like into hermeneutical oblivion. In other words, writing off a text as “error” allows a person to avoid seriously studying and teaching that text, thereby ignoring or missing the deep truth(s) it contains.

3. The Correct View

(That’s a joke! I’m proposing a view, which I think has a lot of merit in Scripture…)

(Oh, and I believe the flood truly happened. I believe the worldwide flood is an historical event. There is lots of sociological and geological support for the flood, which I won’t dive into here. But regardless, my view of the flood can still be true even if there was no worldwide flood.)

Before I suggest a third view, note two things from the text:

1. People were violent before the flood (Genesis 6:5, 11, 13).

The stated reason for God sending the flood is because the earth was filled with violence. God seems opposed to how violent mankind has come, and so decides to do something about it.

2. People were violent after the flood (Genesis 8:21)

The flood brought no change to the evil and violent tendencies of the human heart.

Isn’t this strange? If the stated reason for the flood was to stop the violence of humanity, then God seems to have failed in His task of stopping violence. Is God so foolish that He couldn’t look at the hearts of humanity before the flood and see that even if He killed them all, the survivors and their descendants would continue to constantly live with evil hearts and violent lives?

To ask the question is to answer it. Of course God is not foolish! Something else must be going on behind the scenes.

So … Wait … God hates violence?

As soon as we start looking for what this “something else” might be, some other details from the text start to jump out from the page.

For example … God states at the beginning of the account that He is sorry He made mankind because they are so evil and violent (Genesis 6:6).

Ok, so God is opposed to violence. That’s a good thing.

But then … to show how opposed He is to all the violence that covers the face of the earth … God engages in the greatest act of violence possible by drowning all the people and animals on the earth (except for those on the ark)?

So to stop the violence that covers the earth, God sends a violent flood to cover the earth?

Something’s not right here.

Yes, “God is God and can do what He wants,” but this seems a bit over the top, even for God.

family drowning in the floodIs this just a divine example of the bad parenting advice “Do as I say; not as I do?”

If so, then since we become like the God we worship, it is no wonder that people were just as violently evil after the flood as they were before.

It is a very, very tiny step from believing that “God is extremely violent against evil people” to “God wants me to engage in violence against evil people.” Indeed, the rest of biblical history (along with all human culture) reveals this exact step taking place over and over and over again.

If God really is so violent, why wasn’t Jesus?

Jesus was adamantly opposed to all forms of murderous violence, even against His so-called “enemies.”

He didn’t call down fire from heaven, but rather rebuked His disciples for thinking such things (Luke 9:54). He didn’t call down angels to defend Himself (Matthew 26:53). He even told Peter to put away His sword, and then He healed the man that Peter has struck (Matthew 26:52).

Yes, Jesus cleansed the temple, but no human or animal died, nor does the text say anyone was even hurt (Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-16). Yes, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword , but this was to fulfill prophecy; not so they could actually use it. And don’t even get me started on the book of Revelation.

If it is true, as Scripture says, that Jesus fully reveals God to us (John 1:14, 18; 14:9-11; 2 Cor 4:4; Php 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3), but Jesus was never violent, then we are faced with a choice: Either (A) God truly is violent and Scripture is lying when it says that Jesus fully reveals God to us, or (B) Scripture is not lying, and Jesus does truly reveal God to us, and therefore God is not violent, and we need to understand all those violent texts in some other way.

I go with Option B: Scripture is not lying, and Jesus is not violent, so neither is God.

Isn’t that a contradiction?

If Scripture is not lying, but Scripture says God is violent, while Jesus shows that God is not violent, isn’t this a contradiction?

It initially seems so.

But with one small little tweak on how you read the Bible, it all falls into place.

Most people think the Bible reveals God to us. And while it does to some extent, the ultimate revelation of God is found in Jesus Christ (whom we read about in Scripture, of course). But Jesus shows us how to read the Bible. Jesus provides the interpretive lens through which to study Scripture.

Jesus crucifiedAnd when we look to Jesus, and specifically the most violent aspect of the life of Jesus, His crucifixion, and we carefully see what is being done to Jesus on the cross, we discover something surprising.

God didn’t kill Jesus on the cross; we humans killed Jesus on the cross … and we blamed God for it. Humans killed Jesus and claimed they did so in God’s name, to fulfill God’s will.

But they weren’t fulfilling God’s will. They were doing the opposite. They were committing the greatest sin in human history. And they were completely ignorant of what they were doing. This is why Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Through the cross, we see Jesus showing us how to understand the “violence of God.” The “violence of God” against Jesus on the cross is not God’s violence at all, but is rather the violence of humans which we then blame God for.

Since we (1) Believe God is violent, we (2) become like the God we worship by engaging in our own violence, and (3) justify our violent actions by blaming our violence on God.

But Jesus entered into this twisted framework of violent theology and blew it up from the inside. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus showed (1) that God is supremely non-violent and that (2) we humans are the violent ones.

Once we see this revelation of Jesus on the cross, we then discover that all the other violent portions of Scripture reveal exactly the same thing.

The violent texts of the Bible do not reveal God to us … they reveal us to us. The violent passages of Scripture are not a revelation of the heart of God; they are a revelation of the heart of humanity.

But humans didn’t send the flood!

So now we come back around to the flood. The flood event is extremely violent, and the text blames this violence on God. This fact invites us to read the flood through the lens of the crucifixion.

2 Peter 2 the flood

And when we do, we realize that the flood account of Genesis 6–8 sounds like the explanation that is offered for any natural disaster throughout human history.

“God sent Hurricane Katrina on the people of New Orleans because of Mardi Gras and Voodoo.”

“God sent the Indonesian Tsunami because the people there are Muslim and Hindu.”

“God caused my neighbor to get in a car wreck because he said some profane things about God when I invited him to church.”

Meanwhile, God, through Jesus Christ, is saying,

“NO! No no no no no! Please stop saying such things! I didn’t send those storms. I didn’t kill those people. I love them and forgive them as my own children! It was a terrible disaster that happened to those people, and my only involvement is to weep and mourn with them, while calling you to go help them!

“But as long as you think I am punishing them, you will continue to sit and gloat at the disaster that has come upon your enemies. But your enemies are not my enemies, for I have no enemies. I call you to love your enemies, for they are my children too.”

So What Happened in the Flood?

I believe the flood account of Genesis 6–8 was written many thousands of years after it actually happened, and is therefore a human explanation for an actual historical event. I believe it is an inspired and inerrant account of the human explanation for a natural disaster, and as such, it invites us to see how we humans explain natural disasters today.

The flood event of Genesis 6-8 contains all the signs of a human rationalization for a violent natural disaster:

The people committed great sin (Genesis 6:1-4) and became monsters. They were so bad, they did nothing but evil all the time (Genesis 6:5, 11, 13). And so God destroyed them all! Yay! But … it didn’t really work, because we’re still pretty violent. So be careful … If you sin against God, He might destroy you too!

Do you see? A flood did occur. It was a terrible natural disaster unlike anything the world had ever seen. After the fact, the few survivors started to postulate about why such a disaster occurred, and, just like every human before and since that time, they decided that God sent the disaster to punish humans for their sin.

But now, in Jesus, we have learned that this is not what God does. So when we read the flood account of Genesis 6–8, we no longer read it as a warning about what God might do to us if we sin, but rather as a warning about how we will be tempted to think and act when we see bad thing happen to other people.

the flood and total depravityLooking at our face in the mirror of Genesis 6–8, we must ward ourselves against the common human practice of condemning others when bad things happen to them. We must stop saying, “Well, he lost his job and got cancer, so God must be punishing him for some secret sin.” (Remember Job?) Instead, when bad things happen to people, we must, like Jesus, enter into their hellish pain and sorrow, and help them or love them in in any way we can.

When bad things happen to others, we must remind them (and ourselves) that God did send the disaster and is not punishing them for sin. Instead, He is with them in their suffering and grieving for their loss.

So the flood account is a hard text to read. Not because it reveals a God before whom we must cower in fear and trembling, but because it reveals to us the blackness of our own sinful hearts when we prefer to condemn others in God’s name rather than help them through their pain.

The next time something bad happens to a family member, friend, or foe, how will you respond?

This post was part of the September 2018 Synchroblog on the topic of the flood. Here are the other contributors to this month’s topic. Go and read them all!

  • The Flood Story – K. W. Leslie
  • A Flood of Insightful Hope – Jordan Hathcock
  • There will Never Be a World Wide Flood Again but Was There Ever One in the First Place? – Done with Religion
  • The Flood as a Foreshadowing to the Cross of Christ – God is Not like Thanos from the Infinity War – Scott Sloan\
  • The Great Flood: 7 Amazing Lessons Every Christian Needs To Know – Joseph A. Brown
  • Is God like Thanos from the Avengers Infinity War? – Scott and Sadie
  • The Flood is a Remedy for Corruption – Tomasz Leszczynski
  • Did God Really Drown Millions in the Flood? – Mike Edwards

God is Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: crucifxion of Jesus, flood, Genesis 6-8, Genesis 6:1-4, Genesis 6:11, Genesis 6:13, Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, inerrancy of Scripture, synchroblog, violence of God

Advertisement

Three Views on Hell (and a fourth view I hold)

By Jeremy Myers
39 Comments

Three Views on Hell (and a fourth view I hold)
Note: Make sure you read all the way to the bottom to find out how to download a 2-hour audio teaching that is related to the topic of hell.

three views on hell

In my forthcoming book on hell, I survey the three most common views on hell. Here is what I wrote:

In western Christian theology, there are three common views about hell.

Traditionalism

The first, Traditionalism (sometimes called Eternal Conscious Torment or Infernalism), is the most widely recognized. In this view, the unredeemed dead suffer for all eternity in flames of fire.

The traditional view of hell is usually equated with pictures of people screaming in agony for all eternity as they float around in a lake of fire while being burned alive but never dying.

Such a view is found in many popular books and movies, including Dante’s Inferno, Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell, and the 1997 science fiction horror movie “Event Horizon.”

Universalism

The second view, Universalism, is the opposite of Traditionalism. In this view, there is no eternal dwelling place for the unredeemed dead. Instead, all people will end up living with God for eternity.

Though many people reject God in this life, the Universalist believes that when a person stands before God in eternity, they will see the error of their ways and will gladly choose to be with God for eternity. And God, who is defined by love, will accept all people into eternity with Him.

The biblical texts which seem to teach about people living in eternal fire are either outright rejected or are interpreted as referring to some sort of divine discipline in this life or the next before a person enters eternity with God.

Annihilationism

The third common view is Annihilationism (sometimes called Conditional Immortality or Conditionalism). This view holds that all the unregenerate dead will ultimately cease to exist so that only the redeemed will live with God in eternity.

This view tends to be the “middle ground” view between Traditionalism and Universalism. It recognizes, along with Traditionalism, that choices made in this life do have eternal consequences and that some people will continue to rebel against God, even in eternity. Therefore, God cannot force people to spend eternity with Him against their will.

views on hellHowever, the Annihilationist also agrees with the Universalist that it would be monstrous for God to torture people for all eternity. The biblical texts which seem to imply an eternal existence in fire are instead understood as texts that describe an eternal destruction so that those who undergo it simply cease to exist.

Some Annihilationists believe that this destruction occurs immediately after a person dies, while others believe that there is first a period of punishment and suffering for sins, until a person is finally consumed and ceases to exist.

Other Views on Hell

Although these are the three main views on hell, there are various other flavors and degrees of each.

For example, the Catholic teaching of Purgatory is sort of a cross between Traditionalsim and Universalism. Purgatory teaches that while some will suffer in hell for all eternity, others will have a shortened period of suffering to pay for their sins, after which time they will be able to enter heaven and spend eternity with God.

Then there is the view known as Ultimate Reconciliation, which, like Purgatory, is also a cross between Traditionalism and Universalism. However, in this view, rather than some people spending eternity separated from God in hell, Ultimate Reconciliation teaches that eventually, all people will end up reconciled to God in heaven.

So while Purgatory is closer to Traditionalism, Universal Reconciliation is closer to Universalism. But both include a period of time in which a person undergoes suffering for the sins they committed in this life while they were in rebellion against God.

My View on Hell

In the book I am writing about hell, I argue several things about hell. Among them are these:

  1. The traditional doctrine of hell is drawn more from pagan and mythological sources than from Scripture.
  2. There is no Greek or Hebrew word in the Bible that is properly translated as “hell.”
  3. Yet “hell” does exist … but not in the afterlife. Hell is the experience of some people (in varying degrees) during this life.
  4. The ministry of Jesus and the task of the church is to rescue people from the hell they are living in.

hell fire

What does this mean about nonbelievers who die? What is their eternal state? The truth is that the Bible says almost nothing about the question of the eternal state of unregenerate people. So I trust in the love, mercy, and goodness of God to work it out.

I do not think that God will annihilate part of His eternal creation, nor do I believe that God will cause the objects of His love to suffer for all eternity. But this doesn’t make me a universalist, for I also believe that God respects the decisions of people to live without Him if they so choose.

Therefore, I believe that God, in His wisdom and sovereignty, will create a way for people to live forever separated from Him, but not in a way that tortures them for eternity.

What do you think of this proposal? Share your views in the comment section below.

Do you want an MP3 teaching about the word "Fire" in Scripture?

After reading this blog post, I bet you have questions about passages in Scripture which refer to "everlasting fire" or the "Lake of Fire."

Download my 2-hour study on the word "Fire" by entering your email address below. I will also send you some emails with a special invitation to join my discipleship group.

This post was part of the August 2018 Synchroblog. Below are the other contributors to the synchroblog. Go check them out!

  • What God May Really Be Like – Why Can’t Even God-Followers Get Along?
  • Wesley Rostoll – Why did God accept Abel’s offering and not Cain’s?
  • Liz Dyer – Religious Freedom is NOT Freedom to Discriminate
  • Jordan Hathcock – Let’s Get Dirty

God is Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: annihilationism, burn in hell, eternal conscious torment, everlasting fire, fire, hell, lake of fire, Purgatory, synchroblog, universalim

Advertisement

It’s not Personal; it’s Just War

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

It’s not Personal; it’s Just War

Have you ever heard someone say, “It’s not personal; it’s just business”? This statement is usually said in the context of one person destroying the livelihood of another person through a hostile corporate takeover, or pushing a company out of business, or some sort of other action which ruins that other person’s company or income stream.

Of course, the person who is losing their livelihood, income, or business nearly always takes this attack personally. It is impossible not to. Each person is intimately connected with what they do and how they earn their income and provide for themselves and their family. It is deeply “personal” when someone else tries to take that away.

Which brings me to the concept of “Just War.” Just War theory is the idea that some wars are good, right, holy, and just. When such wars are waged, the attacking army often views their actions as good and godly, so that many of those on the receiving end of these attacks should be pleased and happy about the bombs falling out of the sky and the bullets whizzing by their heads because they are being set free and liberated from some form of evil that had enslaved them.

In other words, some proponents of “Just War theory” give the impression that as our armies march off to kill others in God’s name, we can be saying, “It’s not personal; it’s Just War,” and they expect people to say “Thank you!” as bombs fall on their heads.

Yes, this is a caricature of the Just War position, but when you listen to advocates of Just War theory, this caricature is not too far off the mark. They see themselves as liberators and freedom fighters who use war to set others free.

just warLet us look briefly at Just War theory, and how it is defined. Following this, I will suggest an alternative method to accomplishing God’s will in this world.

Rules of Just War

The rules for Just War were first developed by Thomas Aquinas (c1225-74) and Francisco de Vitoria (c1483-1546) and are still referred to by Christians today. They are as follows:

-it must be fought by a legal recognized authority, eg, a government
-the cause of the war must be just
-the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil
-there must be a reasonable chance of success
-the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed)
-only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved

Stated differently:

  1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The Primary Problem with Just War Theory

Just War theory initially seems like a good approach. After all, how else are we to stop evil and violence in this world?

But the truth is that when you talk to any group or government that is engaging in war, they ALL think that their cause is just and that their actions will right a wrong. I challenge you to find a war in human history where one of the sides in the war thought that their involvement in that war was evil and wrong, or that their cause was unjust.

When people and nations march off to war, everybody thinks their cause is righteous, that they are defending themselves against evil and tyranny, and that God is on their side. Go ask Muslim Jihadist, and he will tell you that the violence they engage in against others is holy, right, and just. Jihad, after all, is “Holy War.” Just War, Holy War, Jihad, they’re all the same thing. I wrote about this here: All War is Holy War.

The truth is that all wars are “Just Wars” … or none of them are.

And since we know that most wars are not “Just Wars,” this means that no war is a Just War. We just deceive ourselves into thinking that our war is just while “their” war is evil.

The only real difference between a “Just War” and an evil war is that the people who engage in “Just War” have come up with some excuses to justify their actions in the war. And since every group and government justifies their own, this means that every war is a “Just War” from that group’s perspective.

To put it another way, we could say that “A Just War is a war I engage in, while an evil war is one you engage in. All my wars are just, while all your wars are evil.” But of course, our opponents in war think the same thing. They think their actions are just while ours are evil.

So you see? There is no such thing as a Just War; there are just wars that we justify in our own minds.

So …. Pacifism is the Answer?

No. Pacifism is not the answer either.

Both Pacifism and Just War are inherently self-defeating and impossible to practice.

pacfismThere is no such thing as a true pacifist. Pacifists want to do no harm, to engage in no violence, to kill nothing and hurt nothing. Many pacifists are vegetarians, or even vegans, because they do not want to participate in the killing of animals. And yet few pacifists have difficulty with taking antibiotic medicine or spraying their counter with Lysol to ward off germs and bacteria. But germs and bacteria are living microorganisms. So it is okay to kill them, but not larger organisms? At what point does killing become wrong?

How about bugs and insects? Almost all pacifists drive cars. When you drive a car, you will kill insects every single time. Your tires will run over ants and beetles, bees and butterflies will be crushed against your windshield. I once spent a few hours in the woods with a pacifist, and he was swatting mosquitos right along with the rest of us.

People say that Jesus was a pacifist, but it appears to me from Scripture that He ate lamb at the Passover, and fish on the shore of Galilee. People point out that the text doesn’t actually say he ate meat. Fine. But He certainly caught it, killed it, cooked it, and served it. Several times in the Gospels, for example, He gives His disciples a miraculous catch of fish. So many, the boat threatened to sink. And He knew that these fish would be killed and eaten. And in John 21:9, after one of these miraculous catches, when the disciples reach shore, Jesus already has a fire going with fish cooking on the fire.

The point is that true and complete pacifism is inherently impossible to perfectly practice in this world.

So how do we stop evil?

In order to discover how best to respond to evil, let us look at the foundational motivation of both Just War Theory and Pacifism.

Proponents of Just War theory believe that we must stand up for what is right. We must stand up against evil. They are absolutely correct in this belief.

Proponents of Pacifism believe that violence is wrong; especially the violence that takes human life. They are absolutely correct in this belief.

But if we hold to Just War, then (as we have seen), there is no end to violence. Violence always and only begets more violence. Everybody thinks their war is just, and so a “Just War” only leads to a retaliatory “Just War.” There is no end to this cycle.

Similarly, if we hold to Pacifism, then we will often let evil win because we fail to properly stand up to violence and evil, thereby allowing ourselves or others to get steamrolled by violence. People who are pacifists sometimes no nothing but sit there (or shout at) evil while it is occurring, when they should be taking an active stand against it.

just war vs pacifism

The Third Way

Thankfully, Just War and Pacifism are not the only two options. There is a third way, which is the way of Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and numerous others.

This third way approach to evil and violence takes the strengths of both Just War and Pacifism while avoiding the weaknesses and drawbacks. This “Third Way” is called Non-Violent Resistance.

It stands up to evil wherever it is found, but with a commitment to doing so non-violently.

The difficulty with this approach is that since we live in a world that is bathed in violence, we have trouble seeing how a non-violent approach can stop the flood of violence. It is difficult to imagine how non-violent resistance can be effective in stopping the spread of evil and violence.

How, for example, would non-violent resistance have stopped Hitler? The truth is that I do not know. (Although part of the answer involves never waging World War I. Hitler was a product of Germany’s loss in World War I. So if World War I had never happened, then World War II would not have happened either. And when you look at the events which started World War I, it was a war that never should have been waged.)

The greatest difficulty with non-violent resistance, however, is that there are no formulas to follow or steps to carry out. The rules to violence are easy: If you are going to engage in violence, make sure your weapons and army are bigger than those of your enemy. There are no such rules with non-violent resistance. Each situation is unique, and requires a unique response.

Responding to Hitler non-violently requires a whole different set of actions than responding to a man on the street who wants to rob you and gunpoint.

Nevertheless, there are six principles I would like to suggest for all non-violent resistance.

The Six Principles of Non-Violent Resistance

Jesus Christ Roman soldierThe six principles of non-violent resistance form an acrostic which spells CHRIST. Jesus Christ was the perfect example of how to respond non-violently to evil, and so it is appropriate that His title, Christ, helps guide us into our own way of non-violence.

Here are the six principles. Non-Violent resistance requires:

  • Creativity (bathed in prayer) in the face of evil.
  • Honesty about yourself, and how you contributed to the problem.
  • Realism about the world situation and the reality of evil. Violence will often “win.”
  • Incarnation of the love, patience, and forgiveness of God as seen in Jesus.
  • Strength and courage to stand while not retaliating.
  • Trust in God to work, and to recognize that sometimes it is better to die than kill.

Note that as we carry out these principles in our live, we are not seeking revolution, but revelation. The key to non-violent resistance is to reveal the character and nature of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

the way to peaceWe change the world by showing it a different and better way to peace than the way it knows, which is the way of war and bloodshed.

The world has never imagined that there can be another way, but Jesus has revealed it, and now our task is to reveal it as well. We cannot force change upon the world, but we can change how we ourselves live in response to others, and when they see this, they might be inspired to live differently as well. As such, our lives are prophetic. Through our words and actions, we reveal who God is and how God wants us to live.

So do you see some evil situations in the world that need to be fixed? Do you see some violent actions that need to be stopped? Follow the way of Jesus in seeking to stand up to these situations and actions with truth, love, forgiveness, courage, and strength, and then see how God works to bring about peace through you.


This post was part of the July 2018 Synchroblog on the topic of Just War and Pacifism. Here are links to others who contributed this month. Go read them all!

  • K. W. Leslie – Just War: Vengeance Disguised as Righteousness 
  • What God May Really Be Like – Is God a Warmonger or a Pacifist?
  • Layman Seeker – Disarmed and Harmonious
  • Tim Nichols – If you Love Sheep …
  • Scott Sloan – Holy War and Manifest Destiny in Light of the Cross
  • Done With Religion – For God and Country
  • Justin Steckbauer – Should Christians Fight in a War?

God is Redeeming Life, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: just war, non-violence, non-violent resistance, pacifism, peace, synchroblog

Advertisement

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework