Welcome to Gaia! ::

Romans 15:33; Isaiah 2:4 and Exodus 15:3; Joel 3:9-10
God of Peace
(Isaiah 2:4)--"And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war."
(Romans 15:33)--"Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."
God of War
(Exodus 15:3)--"The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is His name."
(Joel 3:9-10)--"Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare a war; rouse the mighty men! Let all the soldiers draw near, let them come up! Beat your plowshares into swords, 10And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, “I am a mighty man.”
Anyone can take verses out of context and compare them to other verses out of context and get a "contradiction." But, context is sacrificed in this manner and along with it, truth is lost. In Isaiah 2:4, God is giving a prophet announcement of a future time when He will be the one who settles disputes and there will be no more war. In Romans 15:33, it is simply said that God is a God of peace. He is.

Yet we have the verses that show God's judgmental side. In Exodus 15:3 we see God as a warrior. But the context is the destruction of the Egyptian Army. As we all know, Egypt had enslaved the Israelite nation and God simply became their warrior and delivered them. In Joel 3:9-10 we see a prophetic statement as the book of Joel clearly is prophetic in nature. In other words, there will come a time when it is required to fight.

There is no contradiction for God to be both the Lord who battles unrighteousness and also loves peace. This is just as true with people, who are really peaceful by nature, but will fight when the time requires it.

Source

I also object to the term 'murder'. To be a murderer is commonly understood as someone who has taken someones life unlawfully, without just cause. God has both law and right on His side to reclaim it.

Psalm 24:1
Of David. A psalm. The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;

PUNISHMENT AND VENGEANCE

Letting evil go unpunished, and not avenging injustice would be evil and unloving. It would be unloving to not let evil have consequences.

Does God change His mind?
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

These verses indicate that God isn't the sort to flip sides. But what, it is asked, of these verses?

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."

Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

2 Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50, Genesis 18:23-33.

So what is the answer? It comes by stages:

The attribute of omniscience, of knowing all things, must be clarified. Judeo-Christian belief holds that God is timeless. Past, present and future for God can be seen as a whole.
This much is commonly asserted. What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that God also knows how things would turn out if differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making nexus. God knew you would turn left at Main Street this morning; but He also knows what would have happened had you turned right.

A "prophet" in the Bible meant more than simply "a predictor of the future". A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jer. 18:7-10 --
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
With this verse, and the fact that the role of a prophet was more than just as a predictor, it is quite clear why it is pointless to object when, for example, God withholds judgment upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10). We may read it as a definitive prophecy, but it would be understood by the hearers as exhortation allowing for the disaster to be avoided.

Following ancient rules of rhetoric and the constraints of oral communication, as well as the nature of the Semitic mindset which typically expressed itself in extremes, it would be less appropriate for a prophet making a popular declaration to delineate possible exceptions in his general proclamation. Such side-tracking would make his message less memorable and effective in an era when retention and effect was far more important in the short term than detailed analysis.

G. B. Caird in The Language and Imagery of the Bible [112ff] uses several passages cited typically by Skeptics in this context as examples of "prophetic hyperbole" intended to express matters in an unqualified way, yet hardly meaning that there was no chance to escape judgment.

Finally, let us make it clear what it means to say that God does not "change". This does not mean that God is static, never does anything, or never says anything. Nor can it be asserted to mean that God does not alter stated plans in reaction to human freewill choices. Our quote from Jeremiah shows that well enough. We will find that the references to God not "changing" cannot hold up such a narrow interpretation.
Let's go now to an examination of verses that have been used in this argument.

Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding God "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the Skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. It is nacham, and it means to be sorry, grieve, or to pity.
Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to God, as we shall see.

Gen. 18:23-33. We won't quote this passage in entirety; suffice to say: It is the incident in which Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of Sodom, asking Him to spare the city in a classic ANE "marketplace bartering" conversation which probably served to give Abraham some idea what this new God of "his" was like.
Did God here offer to change His mind? Let's put it this way. The story, and Jeremiah above, indicates that with intercession and/or change, God will make a change in an announced plan. But if God is omniscient, then He knew in advance what Abraham would ask for -- and knew also what the end result would be. (Note that God asks, clearly rhetorically [18:17], whether He should tell Abraham what His plans are, and that the number of possible righteous goes only to 10 -- the next logical increment, 5, would have been less than the number of Lot's family of 6: Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and their prospective grooms. In essence Abraham is pleading for Lot's safety here.)

God dealt with Abraham in human terms for his own sake; but even before the conversation started, the matter was decided. God did not change nor compromise, but in fact, in feigning ignorance (v. 21), dropped a very strong hint that intercession on Abraham's part was desired.

This incident was more than a typical ANE barter-exchange, then: It was also a tone-setting meeting laying down the terms upon which God would relate to His covenant people. He knew what they would do; but He also wanted them to come to Him in their need. (And in any event, since all 6 members of Lot's family eventually fouled up, it was proven that there were no righteous people in Sodom on that day.)

This general principle of intercession -- which of course was always foreknown -- can be seen in other cites commonly used in this argument: Exodus 32:10-14; Numbers 16:20-35 and 44-50; 2 Kings 20:1-7, and Amos 7:3, 6. But let's look at some other key cites.

Numbers 23:19 -- The oracle of Balaam needs to be looked at it two ways. First, what of this word repent? I think it is obvious that it must be read in a different sense here -- "grieve" just doesn't fit the bill.
Second, the oracle itself notes that there were conditions for the blessing (v. 21). This pretty obviously indicates that if the conditions change, a "Jeremiah 18 reversal" will follow. (cf. also 1 Sam. 15:29, Ezek. 24:14. Moreover, keep in mind that this is said by Balaam, who is trying to keep himself out of trouble with Balak for giving out a prophecy blessing Israel rather than cursing it.)

Malachi 3:6 -- This is a "no change" verse, and we should immediately remember what we have said above about such things. "Change" does not refer to simply any possible change, but has specific contexts.
Here, it is said in the context of maintaining the covenant promise of preservation to the Israelites in spite of their sins. A covenant agreement is a serious thing -- it is a written contract. This was an unconditional promise, unlike those under the Jeremiah 18 clause, and God will not break it, and has not (though the Israelites did).

James 1:17 -- Finally, there is this reach into the NT. But again, context makes for clear: James is discussing the ways of men and their fickle, changing morals and treasures (1:2-16). This is the regard in which he asserts that there is neither turning or variation in God, and we are not justified in reading more than that into it.
It is not a statement of "ontological immutability" but one concerned with "the unwavering character of God's faithfulness." (See Donald J. Versput, "James 1:17 and the Jewish Morning Prayers." Novum Testamentum 35, 1997, 177-191.)

Objection: God specifically states that he spared Nineveh because of their repentance (Jonah 3:10). So what about 4:11?

Jonah 4:11 simply reflects an expression of concern for the people and animals of Nineveh. It has virtually nothing to do with God's ultimate reason for withholding destruction as related in 3:10. If God had no concern for them, then presumably he wouldn't have been concerned with whether or not they repented and Jonah would not have even been sent in the first place. It gives the reason why God warned the Ninevites in the first place, not why they were spared.

There are occasions in which God withholds a promised judgment even when those he had threatened did not change their ways at all. See Ex. 32:9-14.

"Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." The judgment here is conditional, and not conditional on the Israelites as a whole, but on their human representative Moses. If Moses leaves God alone, then the Israelites will taste judgment. Moses intercedes, as God (no doubt) expected him to.

Contextually we find that the reason for the threat is given in Exodus 32:7,8 where the Israelites not only worship an idol in the shape of a calf, but misplace credit for their deliverance from Egypt.

Jonah himself apparently understood his warnings as absolute statements, because when God fails to destroy the city as promised, he becomes very angry and frustrated (4:1,4) and asks God to take his life (4:3,8.). Why would he have done this if he meant his warnings to be conditional statements?

Simply put, even without the Semitic context, the conclusion reached does not follow from the evidence. Jonah from the first had a bad attitude about his role in preaching to the Ninevites. As Jonah himself says (Jonah 4:2,3): "That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

It is clear from Jonah's "attitude" that his bitterness was the result of God sparing the city even though the Ninevites had repented. In other words his response (as exemplified by 4:2-3) is, "This has been a big waste of time, and I resent it." He didn't care for the Ninevites as persons (a reaction most likely induced by the Assyrians being the Jews' political enemies).

We also have a pretty clear contextual clue that the Ninevites took the prophecy of doom as conditional. The text affirms that they believed Jonah. So why not move away or get out of town? They don't move away, however; they fast, don sackcloth, repent, and then they wait. Resigned to their fate, or hoping for mercy?

God can, by definition, cause things to turn out any way he wishes; again by definition, he can never be forced to choose a course of action with substandard results.

Can an omnipotent being, by definition, cause things to turn out any way it wishes? Actually, no. An omnipotent being cannot alter a free will choice to obtain a desired result (this results in both A and not-A being true at the same time and in the same sense, which is a contradiction). Can an omnipotent being be forced to choose a course of action with substandard results? No, and what of it? It is incumbent on Skeptics to establish that our omnipotent being (God) chose a course of action which obtained comparatively substandard results.

-JPH

Source

If God is not the author of confusion, what about the Tower of Babel?

1. Confused languages (Gen. 11:8-9)--"So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth."

2.Not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33)--"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."

This isn't a difficult issue at all. On one hand, God is not the author of confusion: "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints," (1 Cor. 14:33). The context of this verse is dealing with the gift of tongues as were spoken in Christian churches in its early years. Foreigners would attend these churches and hear their own languages being spoken. There would often be interpretations of these tongues. Also, Christians would be over eager in their use of various tongues and this would often lead to confusion as people did not do things in order. Therefore, in the immediate verses prior to (1 Cor. 14:33), Paul had just given instruction on the proper use of the tongues in the church, a use which stated order and sequence. The goal was not to produce a confusion among the hearers so that they would not understand the gospel. Instead, it was to produce an orderly service of worship.

The context of the Tower of Babel is quite different. The people of the earth were attempting to build a tower that would " . . . reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth," (Gen. 11:4). The sin of the people was their great pride. They were seeking to remain one group in one location under their own efforts. Ultimately, this was a defiance of God's proclamation to fill the earth (Gen. 9:1). God wanted them to spread out. "So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. 9Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth," (Gen. 11:8-9). Therefore, there is no contradiction since each is a different context and a different subject.

Source

It would be foolish to ignore the passages in Scripture that talk about God’s anger. Yes, God does get angry; there are many examples in the Bible of this. He “displays his wrath every day” (Psalm 7:11).

However, we must not equate God’s anger with our own human experiences of that emotion (that is why the author of this contradiction is confused - Garland). We must look again to the Bible. Ephesians 4:26–27 tells us it is possible to experience anger but not sin. As God cannot sin, we know that His anger is righteous, unlike the common experience of anger in ourselves. As James 1:20 says, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.”

The context of the verses of God getting angry reveals why He gets angry. God gets angry when there is a violation of His character. God is righteous, just, and holy, and none of these attributes can be compromised (Exodus 20:4–6; Isaiah 42:8.). God was angry with the nation of Israel and with Israel’s kings every time they turned away from obeying Him (e.g., 1 Kings 11:9–10; 17:18.). The wicked practices of the nations surrounding Israel, such as child sacrifice and sexual perversion, aroused God’s anger to the point He commanded Israel to completely destroy them—every man, woman, child, and animal—to remove wickedness from the land (Deuteronomy 7:1–6). Just as a parent becomes angry at anything that would hurt his children, so God’s anger is directed at that which would harm His people and their relationship with Him. “‘As surely as I live,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live’” (Ezekiel 33:11).

In the New Testament, Jesus got angry with the religious teachers and leaders of that day for using religion for their own gain and keeping people in bondage (John 2:13–16; Mark 3:4–5). Romans 1:18 tells us God’s anger, or wrath, comes against “the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” So God gets angry at the wickedness in people, and He opposes that wickedness in an effort to turn them from evil, that they may find true life and freedom in Him. Even in His anger, God’s motivation is love for people; to restore the relationship that sin destroyed.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-get-angry.html#ixzz3ZlWY9nTl

God shows us all a general mercy.

Matt 5:45 (NET)
5:45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Psalm 145:9 (NET)
145:9 The Lord is good to all, and has compassion on all he has made.

Psalm 119:64 (NET)
119:64 O Lord, your loyal love fills the earth. Teach me your statutes!

Luke 6:35,36 (NET)
6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful

Another one of His general mercies (One applies to us all) is that He doesn't destroy us immediately, but lets us enjoy life, sun, our families, work and other privileges.

Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Even the the inhabitants living in the land Israel was given received mercy up until a certain point. God does not destroy innocent nations...

Genesis 20:3-5
Abraham, Sarah and Abimelech
…3But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married." 4Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless? 5"Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister '? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."

Who God chooses to extend a mercy beyond a general mercy to should be totally up to Him - since there are no one who really can say that they are deserving of it.

If you reject truth and don't even really want the truth, then you will get (i.e. God will give you) EXACTLY what you want! (The old "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it")

Some confusion (not all, by any means!) may be a judgment from God, in keeping with #1 above--cf. Rom 1.25 ("They exchanged the truth of God for a lie") and 1.28 ("Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind"). But it is ALWAYS in line with what we WANT.

God uses a 'permission' ethic to achieve this. In some cases He allowed false messages and false messengers to have access to the 'hearer' (e.g. Ahab, Jeremiah's audience); in some cases He will allow strong epistemic evidences to accompany said messages (2 Thess 2). He permits deceptive influences into someone's life because (1) they ASK for them; AND often (2) as judgment for prior rejection of truth and honesty-values.

Note: When the demons in Matt 8.30 asked for permission to enter the animals, Jesus simply said 'Go' (.31). This does NOT make Him the active sponsor of evil. When he told Judas to do his betrayal "quickly," this did not implicate Him in His own betrayal. God allows us to chose ignorance. He seems to stall it off for a while, but if we become increasingly dishonest in how we deal with information about Him and other truth, eventually He will ethically be driven to 'punish us'--to allow our character to BECOME like the character of our most recent choices (e.g. to reject obvious truth).

Source

Job is responding to his suffering. From what he can see the wicked are blessed while he has to suffer. Suffering sometimes makes us blind to the big picture and unable to see things as they really are. In the end the wicked are destroyed. God is enduring their wickedness with an amazing patient today, but there will come a future when the Earth will have no one doing wicked on it any more.

Romans 9:22
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

It should also be stated that the persecution of the righteous does not come from God, but from the unrighteous.

Proverbs 10:7
The name of the righteous is used in blessings, but the name of the wicked will rot.