Thursday: The Wickedness of Man
Read Genesis 4:17-24. What was Cain’s legacy, and how did Cain’s crime open the way for the increasing wickedness of humankind?
Cain’s great-great-great-grandson, Lamech, refers to Cain’s crime in the context of his own. This comparison between the crime of Cain and the crime of Lamech is instructive. While Cain keeps silent about his only recorded crime, Lamech seems to be boasting about his, expressing it in a song (Genesis 4:23-24). While Cain asks for God’s mercy, Lamech is not recorded as asking for it. While Cain is avenged seven times by God, Lamech believes that he will be avenged seventy-seven times (see Genesis 4:24), a hint that he’s very much aware of his guilt.
Image © Krieg Barrie from GoodSalt.com
Also, Cain is monogamous (Genesis 4:17); Lamech introduces polygamy, for the Scripture says specifically that he “took for himself two wives” (Genesis 4:19, NKJV). This intensification and exaltation of evil will definitely affect the next generations of Cainites.
Following immediately this episode of evil in the Cainite family, the biblical text records a new event that counters the Cainite trend. “Adam knew his wife” (Genesis 4:25), and the result is the birth of Seth, whose name is given by Eve to indicate that God had put “another seed” in the place of Abel.
In fact, the history of the name Seth precedes Abel. The name Seth is derived from the Hebrew verb ’ashit, “I will put” (Genesis 3:15), which introduces the Messianic prophecy. The Messianic seed will be passed on in the Sethite line. The biblical text gives, then, the record of the Messianic line beginning with Seth (Genesis 5:3-4), and including Enoch (), Methuselah, and ending with Noah (Genesis 6:8).
The phrase “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2) refers to the line of Seth because they are designed to preserve the image of God (Genesis 5:1, Genesis 5:4). On the other hand, the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:2) seems to have a negative connotation, contrasting the offspring of those in the image of God to those in the image of men. And it is under the influence of these “daughters of men” that the sons of God “took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2, NKJV), indicating the wrong direction humanity was heading.
| Read Genesis 6:1-5. What a powerful testimony to the corruption of sin! Why must we do all that we can in God’s power to eradicate sin from our lives? |
(25)
Today's lesson asks the question: "What was Cain’s legacy, and how did Cain’s crime open the way for the increasing wickedness of humankind?" Yesterday's lesson asked a similar question: "What is the connection between Cain’s sin and of his becoming “a fugitive and a vagabond … on the earth?"
I would like to respectfully comment on the underpinning presupposition/s inherent to answering these questions and to the lesson's wider related commentary yesterday and today. The underpinning issue is the connection between what Cain did and the subsequent impacts. The lesson has proposed on the one hand that these impacts are the result of God's "judgment/s" and "sentencing", etc. On the other hand, today's question and some of the commentary suggests that the impacts arise more as a direct consequence of factors related to Cain's attitude and actions.
As humans we are very familiar with the concepts of judgments, sentences and application of punishment. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, they are the ways of our world. But God has informed us that His Ways are higher than our ways (eg, Isaiah 55:8-9) - which I would propose means conceptually different (eg, Isaiah 55; Matthew 5-7). As humans we do things the way we do because of our limitations - not just as created beings, but also as created beings within a fallen, sin-infected world. God, on the other hand, does not suffer from these limitations and is therefore able to 'govern' His creation/s very differently to the way we 'govern', or attempt to govern. I accept that the burden of explanation/evidence falls to me to provide.
Though the topic of what I am proposing for consideration by those who are interested is way beyond the scope of what I can fully outline here, I will provide some initial points that I believe constitute initial evidence that what I am suggesting has enough merit to be worthy of further consideration and discussion.
1) There are many references to the notion that sin is the direct source of detrimental consequences. Galatians 6:7-8 essentially proposes that God is vindicated by existence of the reality that we reap what we sew from what we sew. The 'mechanism' being referred to is inherent cause-and-effect which is the 'fabric' of created reality. Other references that I propose reflect this same reality are Romans 8:2; James 1:14-15; Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 4:7.
2) If we consider the functional nature of destruction, we see that it arises from the chaos produced by lawlessness - from something no longer being in harmony with the inherent laws (cause-and-effect constants) that promote and sustain order and wellbeing. When Lucifer put himself out of harmony with self-renouncing love, he disconnected himself from the core principle necessary for life. He should have self-destructed instantly and would have except for God's intervention. The exact same thing was the case for Adam and Eve (as per Genesis 2:16-17). The same was the case for Cain - and Lamech... and so on. It is easy to overlook that when Adam and Eve unleashed lawlessness, as guardians of the ecosystem, the unleashed lawlessness also spilled over into the fabric of the ecosystem such that it too would have imploded had God not stepped in to similarly temporarily restrain (as per principle reflected in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8; Revelation 7:1) that inherent reality in order to provide an avenue of probation for salvation. This restraining is a dynamic and ongoing work God undertakes with delicate precision for now in order to keep a window of salvation-access open until all have set their heart's desire for life or death (as per Deuteronomy 30:15-20). Because (a) destruction is exclusively mediated by lawlessness (ie, the inherent "law of sin and death" referred to in Romans 8:2) and not lawfulness (the "law of the Spirit of Life"), and (b) God does not engage in lawlessness (1 John 1:5; John 1:1-5), producing destruction is alien to God (James 1:17).
3) What then of the references in the Old Testament that, in English translations, appear to directly state that God is the author of destruction (eg Isaiah 45:7)? This is where it is essential that we recognise that "...Hebrew culture attributed responsibility to an individual for acts he did not commit but that he allowed to happen. Therefore the inspired writers of the Scriptures commonly credit God with doing actively that which in Western thought we would say He permits or does not prevent from happening..." (Methods of Bible Study: Section 4.16.
I acknowledge some will be very concerned by what I am proposing. It certainly created discomfort for me when I first encountered it and therefore set out with determination to prove that it was wrong. But the more I attempted to do that, the more supportive evidence I instead encountered. That is why I am not telling anyone what they should believe, but only sharing what I (and others, it's not just me) are finding for what it is may be worth to some. I accept accountability for what I am outlining and am prepared to clarify or substantiate further if needed.
Hi Phil,
I totally agree with you that sin directly causes death, and harmony with God's Law of love is the basis for abundant life.
Having said that, I believe sin directly causes death because it is willful separation from the LifeGiver and LifeSustainer. We have no life of our own independent from God. Thus, the natural consequences of separating from God and His life-sustaining power results in death. We live by His grace, because He is giving us a period of probation to understand His character and willingly choose to serve Him.
I do not believe in " inherent laws (cause-and-effect constants) that promote and sustain order and wellbeing" independent of our Creator God. Rather, these laws are the direct outflowing of His nature - not independent of Him.
As direct Author of the Law of Life, God can at any time directly intervene in the affairs of this planet to ensure that His plan of salvation will prevail. As Author of the laws that govern our being, He is above the laws, not subject to them. And this explains the events I referenced in my comment of Monday, April 10, under Monday: The Two Offerings.
[Miracles are an evidence to the fact that God is above His laws, although He usually uses His laws to accomplish His will. He can make grape juice out of water in an instant, rather than waiting for grapes to mature and be squeezed for juice. He can cause the waters from under the earth to gush up with indescribable force to join the condensed water vapor from above the atmosphere to cause a universal flood to destroy the evil that threatened to extinguish the "seed of the woman."]
Thanks Inge
One of the things about growing in our awareness of God's "higher ways" is that we are needing to transcend the paradigms (and their associated presuppositions) that we, in our fallen context, are familiar with and draw upon by default. And such growth is no easy process. Hence dialogue and reflection across time are necessary, so thank you for your willingness to engage in this.
I would like to affirm that I am not in any way proposing that the inherent laws (cause-and-effect constants) that promote and sustain order and wellbeing are independent of God. As you have said, they are the "direct outflowing of His nature". However, rather than conceiving that God is above His laws or not subject to them, I would propose the necessity of viewing the relationship between God and His laws through a different ('higher') paradigm whereby, because these inherent laws/constants are, in turn, an inherent outflow and manifestation of His nature, God always is - and therefore 'operates' - in harmony with these and never against them (hence the reference to "no shadow of turning" in James 1:17 or no incorporation of darkness in 1 John 1:5 and 2 Corinthians 6:14).
At the same time, what Paul refers to in Romans 8:2 as the "law (constant) of sin and death", is 'outside of' (or 'alien to') God because such is inherently at odds with God's nature and character (1 John 1:5; James 1:17)*.
Consistent with what you have said regarding God as direct Author of life, which He manifests through the law of life, God must necessarily 'govern/orchestrate' true life (Greek: zoe). While God always has and always will inherently do this, since Lucifer's fall and the subsequent, associated fall of our solar system under Adam and Eve, God for now needs to 'temporarily' additionally 'navigate' the intrusive existence of the law of sin and death - including all of its inherent dynamics**. Thus, while you have said God can at any time directly intervene, I would go even further and say at all times God is actively intervening via ongoing facilitation of a 'dynamic balancing' to ensure that life and His plan of salvation prevail amid a very complex reality that must play itself out in 'The Cosmic Conflict'. What evidence do I propose we have that reflects how God does this?
In addition to God being the originator and sustainer of abundant life/zoe, I find within and across scripture that God also incorporates the principles of progressive restraining or releasing of restraint in relation to that which is alien to Him (ie, lawlessness and destruction: 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8; Revelation 7:1). This is not presently an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but rather a very delicate and dynamic 'balancing act' - though one day release of restraint will be total (as per 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:13-15).
I would like to exemplify the above in relation to your comment regarding the flood. However, given that the flood is the topic of next week's lesson, I will hold off doing so until then so this comment's length stays contained.
-------
* I find this to be consistent with the principle spelled out in Romans 8:7 regarding the inherent "enmity" (Genesis 3:15) that exists between 'good' and 'evil' due to 'their' inherently opposing natures.
**Though evil/'sin' is currently a 'temporarily activated potential' (due to events and dynamics described in Ezekiel 28:16, Genesis 3:6; 4:7, Deuteronomy 12:8, John 3:19-20, etc) - it will ultimately return to a non-activated one that will never be reactivated by anyone again).
Thanks, Phil.
You often reference God's "higher ways," (Isaiah 55:9) with the implication that what you are presenting represents God's "higher ways," just as you are doing in this comment. The text reads in full:
In this passage I hear God saying that His ways are so much higher than our ways that we cannot fully understand them but are invited to believe and rejoice. (The context is a beautiful picture of salvation.) To me, this text calls for humility.
Do you really want to suggest that you represent God's higher ways and whoever doesn't see things the way you do has fallen victim to humanity's "lower ways"?
As you know from previous exchanges, I affirm the the loving character of God and that all His actions spring from love. I may, however, sometimes see the specifics differently than you do. In my previous comment I brought up miracles to illustrate that God is not subject to His laws but above them - as in not having to wait for grapes to mature and be squeezed for juice but directly turning water into wine. I would like to understand how you explain that miracle and others, since you appear to say that God does not interfere with natural laws, except for "restraining" them in certain instances.
You implied that the change in the serpent from a beautiful, highly intelligent creature to a repulsive snake slithering along the ground was due to "inherent consequences that directly flow from the 'lawlessness.'" (You asked me to justify my understanding that it was not "inherent consequences that directly flow from the 'lawlessness'" but the direct result of God's judgment on the serpent.)
In my reply I also wrote the following and would still like to know your answer:
It seems to me that these questions are related in that they are practical applications of your view, rather than the way most of us usually read/understand the Scriptures.
Hi Inge
I am merely proposing that 'we' haven't given sufficient attention to the fact that God's self-disclosure is that the ways of His Kingdom are considerably different to those of our world - paradoxically so (as per the Sermon on the Mount examples). Therefore, I am proposing that when we portray God's ways as the same as ours, there is reason to at least pause and reconsider why we are proposing that God's ways are no different to ours. Yes, we can never fully understand God's ways - but that does not automatically mean we cannot and will not grow in our understanding of those ways as God leads us. Ellen White affirms this and even says we should know more than we do, so its not just me proposing this. And yes, this absolutely calls for humility - in conjunction with a desire to know God and His Ways more and more. Both are in harmony.
When you say "Do you really want to suggest that you represent God's higher ways and whoever doesn't see things the way you do has fallen victim to humanity's "lower ways"?", you are proposing something that I am in no way suggesting or implying. I am merely sharing what I find and that basis of why I find such to have evidence - and each person can do with that what they will (Acts 17:11; Romans 14:5b). I make no judgment in regard to such - I don't need to and don't wish to.
In regard to the 'miracle/s' you mentioned, yes I belive miracles are achieved in harmony with rather than independently from the laws that God has woven into the reality of abundant life. I see no reason why God can't do this and therefore why I operate from this premise. Do I know precisely the details of how God through Jesus transformed the water into wine? No, I do not. But until I have irrefutable evidence that it is absolutely precluded that God could not do such (unless He transcended the laws He created reality to operate on within His Kingdom), then I am able to hold to that premise. I don't expect anyone else to if they are convicted differently. I just find the evidence to be more consistent that God's inherent cause-and-effect mechanisms (constants) that He has used to create the fabric of the reality of life (that is also the reality of the Kingdom of God) are not lacking in anything and therefore do not need to be transcended.
With regard to the change of The (definitive article) Serpent (which I find to be a singular creature operating outside of God's creation), sin/lawlessness when unrestrained, I believe, causes instantaenous self-annihilation. Lawlessness is incapable of holding anything together - including molecular bonds - and therefore disintegration is the inherent outcome. However, a 'side-effect' of restraint (which is applied and released to varying degrees at varying times) is that disintegration is instead manifest more slowly as degradation. This is what the condition of The Serpent to subsequent serpents resulted in. So, yes, I find the possiblity of inherent cause-and-effect is not precluded.
I find the same principle to apply to the fig tree. Remember the inherent default state for everything on this planet since Genesis 3:6 is annihilation. Therefore anything that exists only exists because God is restraining that default state. When God releases that restraint, destruction is the inherent result - with varying degrees of destruction manifest in varying ways under varying timeframes in accordance with the magnitude of release of restraint. The fig tree was merely released to its inherent default state via removal of grace-based restraint because the purpose for the restraint was not being fulfilled. We see this exact same pattern happening with Israel's history.
Yes, I acknowledge my views are different - however I do not find that what I am proposing is at odds with Scripture. Rather, I find what I current see to be more in harmony with Scripture than the views I previously held when trying to disprove the views I have instead ended up embracing based on reading scripture more carefully than I ever did previously. That is because my presuppositions have changed and therefore I now read the same Scripture but see it differently.
Thanks, Phil. I didn't think you were consciously saying that you represent God's "higher ways" while we only represent our "lower ways," but sometimes that's the impression left by your explanation of His "higher ways."
May I gently suggest that "God's inherent cause-and-effect mechanisms (constants) that He has used to create the fabric of the reality of life (that is also the reality of the Kingdom of God)" is your construct. It appears to go beyond what is intrinsic in Scripture.
If God created this universe and all the natural laws by which it exists, He is, by definition, outside His creation and greater than any part of it and greater than all of it. Therefore it is likely that we do not understand His Laws perfectly and thus must be reminded to be humble in our assessment because His ways are beyond our understanding - especially in matters not explicitly revealed.
You are, of course free to believe that the nature of the extraordinarily intelligent and beautiful serpent in Eden was changed by "inherent consequences that directly flow from the 'lawlessness,'" but I see nothing in the Bible that necessitates my interpreting the words of God to the serpent as anything other than what the words literally say in modern English, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live." Gen. 3:15 NLT
You also wrote
That's not exactly what the Bible says. But it does say that all things are created through Christ and that He is even now "upholding all things by the word of His power." Heb 1:3 (So, yes, non-existence is the "default state" if God chose to stop exercising His power - just as it was before He created our world. But I'm not sure that that is a helpful reference point here.) I see Christ primarily upholding and sustaining His creation, rather than "restraining" the evil on this planet, though He also does that. It's a difference of emphasis - an emphasis on God's creative power and love or emphasis on some sort of evil power that He needs to continually restrain. (I think you'll find the main scriptural emphasis on His creative and sustaining power, but I may have missed something.)
Thus we're back at the fig tree. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, I believe He was giving the disciples an object lesson. And it withered and died because Jesus said, "“Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Matt. 21:19. If it had withered by a natural event, the disciples would not have remarked on its state.
On the other hand, if you want to say that "The fig tree was merely released to its inherent default state via removal of grace-based restraint because the purpose for the restraint was not being fulfilled," isn't it still Jesus causing the withering?
Thanks for your feedback Inge.
If what you are suggesting is true, that I am merely presenting my constructs that have no basis in scripture or reality, then readers would be wise to reject what I have presented. I leave it up to readers to each decide for themselves - as per Acts 17:11 and Romans 14:5b.
Satan and our first parent's did NOT cause death to the creation/ecosystem. That's a false premise !
In the 7 creative days of creation, God supplied all sort of seed because trees etc would decay die before the fall.
Adam and Eve knew what death was, by seeing ants die under their feet. If there was no death/entropy around them, how would they know what death was ?
Romans 8:18-30 shows that God subjected creation to entropy/decay/death, it was mankind's mission to rule over the works of God's hands.
Creation is like a womb were sons of God would be tested, and if conformed to the divine image of God in atributes of love, mercy and Justice would be gifted with immortality and rule over creation. Psalm 8 Hebrews 2
Jesus made the way (perfected) to immortality as he enables his law of everlasting life, work in obedient mortal creatures to share that immortal Life.
Larry, I have noticed that you have been using the term entropy - often associated with death and decay. The term comes from the study of thermodynamics and has a specific meaning:
It's actually a bit more complicated than that but I don't want to define half a dozen scientific terms to muddy the water.
Can I suggest that entropy is always part of the created universe and not something that was introduced at the fall?
As a scientist I prefer to thing of entropy as an integral part of God's creation.
Thanks for the info ! 👍🙏
Point stands death and decay was is seen in creation before Adam and Eve ... Seeds ...growth / decay / more seeds
Hi Maurice
For my education and that of others, would you mind elaborating briefly on what function you see entropy serving within the overall scheme of things pre-fall? I'm interested in having my awareness expanded.
Thanks
Phil
John 12:24
Shalom 🙏
Love your comments ...don't go away again 👍
I think that Larry's reference to John 12:24 is worth thinking about.
I am mindful that the Bible has a theme of renewal threaded through it, and I wonder if we should think of eternal life/unfallen life not in terms of a static state, but in a state of renewal. I am not suggesting simplistic explanations like reincarnation, but I think that the idea of renewal provides an interesting possibility to consider.
...and that will give me a good excuse to grow a garden in heaven and eat the fruit of it!
Happy Sabbath brother Maurice Aston, I find your post on the lessons very very interesting and informative...I would encourage you to continue...I study at times but find your answers to the daily lessons insightful 😇
Thanks Larry
I am glad you are thinking and reflecting for yourself in relation to what I am proposing and willing to share where you see things differently.
Phil
Thanks for the kind words, however I would like to think that that holy Spirit has been leading me these past years, in opening the scriptures to my mind in thoughts to eat and digest (spiritual food).
I have no academic qualifications to talk about, I tell my wife jokingly that I'm a dirty nose kid from Dublin, who does not know his butt from his elbow ...
Sincerely
Hi Larry, I’m not sure why you think sin did not bring death. In Revelation 21:4-5 it seems to say otherwise. It’s a beautiful promise that we and our earth will be put back to how God created it. Yes, God created plants and trees with seeds so that as Genesis 2:9 explains, was for our food. We may not understand how things worked before sin, but God did not create death and dying. That came directly from sin and Satan. Genesis 2:15-17 explains that clearly.
Romans 8:20-21 says clearly that nature was effected by sin and is waiting for the day when all will be new again.
Sin did not bring death to the ecosystem, It brought death to mankind !
Shalom 🙏
Hmmm! Larry, I am very time-limited just at the moment and under normal circumstances would challenge your observation. Perhaps you would like to expand that statement a bit. It may be some time before I can get back to it, but I would like to hear more about how you came to that conclusion.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual" (1 Corinthians 15:46 NKJV
18¶For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us.
19For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God’s sons to be revealed.
20For the creation was subjected to futility — not willingly, but because of him who subjected it — in the hope
21that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage to decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children.
22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now.
Romans 8
1¶Then he showed me the riverfn of the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
2down the middle of the city’s main street. The tree of life was on each side of the river, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree are for healing the nations,
3and there will no longer be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will worship him.
4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
5Night will be no more; people will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, because the Lord God will give them light, and they will reign forever and ever.
Revelation 22
Once an organism dies it's still considered a biotic factor within an ecosystem and plays an important role in community dynamics as it breaks down or decomposes. Once it has fully decomposed its elements are considered to have reverted to an abiotic state.
This is my final scripture where God shows he can change his clothing at any time ...methopher/analogy ?
Hebrews 1:10-12 (CSB) 10 And: In the beginning, Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands;
11 ***they will perish***** but you remain.
They will ****all wear out like clothing****
12 you will roll them up like a cloak, and ***they will be changed like clothing.****
But you are the same, and your years will never end.
Shalom 🙏
Phil, I have question. The reason I ask is that I have friend who is hung up on this one “act” (in what you have just outlined it is just a “result”) of God. 1 Samuel 15:3 , God orders Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites. Everything, “ Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”.
I think your explanation and understanding that the ancients always attributed good or bad to God, is correct but I have a hard time explaining this when the plain text indicates that this is a direct order from God and a lot of , “innocents” are killed.
Looking for help from anyone.
Jim, let me direct your thoughts to Rev 15:3, where the Lord is the object of a song which states: "just and true are thy ways thou King of Saints". Would these holy beings sing something that was false? Also, is this Lord truly one in whom there is no change/deviation of any kind(Jas 1:17)?
Knowing this, can we say the Divine sentence against the Amalekites was in fact "just and true", and that perhaps there is much we don't know about the matter which is not spelled out completely in the scriptural account? Yet there are details that tell us they finally filled up their "cup of iniquity" and had become a serious menace in the world, a threat to God's purpose to save all who would believe, and...a danger to themselves.
The real question is do we know God well enough personally to trust Him with those things we don't have all the answers to yet? Is there enough evidence to agree with those Saints who declare before all creation that God is "just and true" in all His ways? Is it possible that even the great grand children of those Amalekites were too lost to be spared, or perhaps that this action may have spared them of a worse fate? Remember, this was NOT the 2nd death, and the Lord knows them that are His.
I happen to believe that for now, our best answers to some questions will only be more questions, which will all be answered during the 1000 years of Revelation 20. And, no where in scripture do we find a different version of that song after all is made known. In fact, we find that all tears will be wiped away, and as I would conclude, all questions answered. Those around the throne who declare "holy, holy, holy", were witnesses to those events so long ago(Rev 4,5). Would all those holy angels and unfallen worlds remain loyal to an unjust God? Everything God has done has been transparent and in the open for all to see. Only Satan hides behind deceptions and lies. An accurate record of the Amalekites, including "every work, and every secret thing"(Eccl 12:13,14), and even "every idle word"(Matt 12:36) is preserved for the judgment by the Saints.
Lastly, the One who (with sad reluctance?)ordered the removal of the Amalekites from society, came and died, even for them, if they had only repented, having been given nearly 400 years to do so. The Lord is "merciful, gracious, longsuffering...willing to forgive..." but, "will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"(Ex 34:6,7).
Robert, I think you asked an important question:
I believe there is danger in trying to fit all of God's ways into the small space of our human understanding. Too often that results in cutting God down to our size or making the Scriptures sound difficult due to supposed mistranslations and the necessity of referencing shades of meaning of original languages.
I'm all for deeper study, but I believe that the Bible is written plainly enough that we can accept it as it reads except when the context indicates that it is symbolical, a parable or the re-telling of an old story (as in the Rich Man and Lazarus)- or perhaps when there are conflicting accounts with actions attributed to God in one instance and humanity in another. Then we need to ask ourselves why this discrepancy appears.
In this case, we need to ask ourselves whether eliminating evil is a good thing or not. If it is a good thing, then it is wholly consistent with God's character of love. If we follow the Exodus carefully, we can see that God only gave the order to exterminate certain peoples after they had had ample evidence of His divinity and they still willfully opposed Him and threatened the safety of His people. So when God ordered the elimination of the Amalekites, it was their judgment time - a type of the final judgment to come when God promises to eliminate all sin and sinners forever so that the universe will pulse with notes of harmony and love, without the discordance of selfishness.
Another aspect to this is that the elimination of people wholly given over to evil is a good thing even for them. Living as slaves to sin makes life a burden and release from such a burden is the kindest thing God can do - both in the past and in the future executive judgment.
Hi Jim
Yes, a challenging issue for sure. I believe it is vitally important that we explore the premises and presuppositions we are operating from when raising such matters - because the presuppositions will 'dictate' what we see and conclude. This is what I explore with people who raise these issues with me. Below are some of the premises/presuppositions I find vital to put on the table to be consciously aware of:
*) Like Robert Whiteman has mentioned, we are told that creation will, afer a period of total revelation of absolutely everything, conclude that all God's ways are just and true (Revelation 15:3). Such a declaration can only come authentically from every single person having every single doubt or concern answered by objective evidence that completely dissolves all doubt or concern. Such cannot come from God merely declaring that what He does or doesn't do - therefore God makes Himself and each and every single one of His Ways throughout every microsecond of earth's history open for all to see and judge for themselves in light of "revelation" (Revelation 15:4) - 'evidence that speaks for itself'. No other basis can render eternity secure from lingering doubt regarding God and His Ways - the issue that Lucifer ignited that started and underpinned the Cosmic Conflict.
*) Relatedly, if there is even one shred of truth to God having done something that was 'unjust', having orechestrated even a single aspect of a single situation one way when He had the power to have orchestrated it a better way, then Satan's allegation/s against God are sustained and it's 'game over'. I acknowledge this with people. Therefore, I propose that God always facilitates the absolute best available option - within the limits that commitment to the freewill of His created beings allows (a factor which considerably complicates options at times).
*) Unfortunately, God's commitment to freewill means that humanity is capable of operating under very degraded ways - hence almost self-annihilating itself by Genesis 6. And if God had not intervened with the flood, humanity would have self-destructed shortly thereafter. Jesus interesting statement to Peter in Matthew 26:52 is, I believe, reflecting a principle that Jesus well understood - those that live violently foster conditions that will likely self-impact them. Israel passed by certain nations peacefully because those nations allowed Israel to do so. But other nations instead chose to engage Israel with the intent of wiping Israel out. With Israel being protected by God in battle (to varying degrees at varying times) and the opposing nations not (instead relying on their impotent 'gods'), what was going to be the outcome? So, is God actually ordering a genocide of people who would othewise have peacefully co-existed with and not engaged Israel in war with the intent of wiping Israel out? Or was God essentially 'foretelling' what was inevitibly going to happen - that in battle they were going to be totally defeated because they were being left to their inherent default-state of impotence and Israel, by comparison, was being sustained by God? The inhernt default state of humanity as totally impotent (if God were to more fully cease restraint against such) is something I don't believe we give sufficient notice to and therefore overlook. Because God in His grace 'temporarily' sends rain on the just and the unjust, we tend to mistakenly conlcude that the 'unjust' are more self-existant than they actually are - conditioning us to operate from a flawed premise.
Perhaps the main thing that I do when speaking with people who raise such concerns is acknowledge their concern - and try to hear their story to find out what has impacted them in their life to give rise to those concerns. Rather than try to 'prove' to them they are 'wrong' (I am not suggesting you are trying to do this), I come from the perspective that if there is any truth to the concern, the God is not 'perfect in all His Ways' (Psalm 18:30), then we have a really big problem because Satan is correct and therefore it is 'game over'. When I do this with people, I generally find that I can subsequently explore the above premises with them in a non-threatening way.
Sin entered the Earth because of a living being's choice. To eradicate it from our lives may also be a matter of choice... are we really choosing Jesus in opposition to pleasure? Am I really willing to choose Christ in opposition to money? What a miracle when we can choose freely, then is because we are not slaves of sin anymore... Jesus is willing to give us LIFE, but we have been choosing the DEATH of sin! This power of choice can be achieved by profound analysis of who we truly are in comparison to what Jesus truly is! He has already won His crown, and we will all see Him coming in the clouds as KING! Because to Him is all glory, and victory! We can overcome our own decaying nature only through His sacrifice done for us!
From a devotional reading: “Our passage (Psalm 22) reveals that man’s wickedness would be on full display during the Lord’s Crucifixion. Jesus lived a sinless life, healed countless people of diseases and other ailments, and even raised people back to life. Jesus deserved praise for His infinite goodness, love, and mercy; instead, mankind mocked, beat, and crucified their Creator. The God who had given them life was condemned to die. Soldiers near the Cross divided His garments and gambled for His tunic (John 19:23–24).”
Looking at it this way, the hatred and murder that spews out of humans is clearly other-worldly. Even predator animals don’t ravage one another for no cause to the extent we do. It’s more than beastly, it’s demonic. Sometimes defendant lawyers plead “insanity” for their clients who have murdered to get them a lesser sentence. I would ask, isn’t all violence insanity? madness? mental illness? Wars taking the lives of thousands of innocent people, shootings every day wounding innocent people, fights breaking out everywhere-yes, today I witnessed a physical fight erupt at a dollar store between 2 people who did not know each other.
As happened in Noah’s day and Sodom and Gomorrah’s day, Humanity is once again accelerating toward total moral depravity and chaos. We’re offered hope in Gen. 4:26 that in the midst of the battlefield where the Serpent’s seed is claiming victories everywhere, the Woman’s seed “began to call upon the name of the Lord”. We, too, stand shoulder to shoulder, humbling ourselves and calling upon the name of the Lord (Zeph. 3:9-12 NAS). Never give up, Jesus is coming, it’s the darkest just before dawn (Heb. 10:37-39).
This weekend I’ll be hosting my dear friend’s 13-year old Daughter, who has been through a lot, and I ask you to pray for my time with her, that I’ll be able to share some part of the Gospel with her.
Gen.6:1-2 - ”And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
It appears in this lesson that the women have been given the onus of being ‘at fault’. Gen.6:2 speaks of the ‘sons of God’ taking the ‘daughters of men’? How does the declaration of women being the ‘daughters of men” imply a negative connotation? If both are the descendants of Adam and Eve, why make the distinction between the male being the sons of God and the female the daughters of men?
Gen.1:28 and Gen.9:7 express the Creator’s desire for ‘men to begin to multiply on the face of the earth’. The union of man and women had to have taken place for a long time before the event noted in Gen.6:2. How long this ‘multiplying’ had been going on we do not know. If these ‘men and women’ are the same men and women who multiplied on the face of the earth until then, how could these man and women noted in Gen.6:2 be any different?
If these ‘sons of God’ were the sons of Seth, did beautiful women suddenly become licentious and men suddenly overly enticed by them; did what God instructed - ‘multiply on the face of the earth’ - suddenly become corrupted?
Something nefarious, never before heard of, seems to have happened which 2Peter2:2-4, and Jude1:5-6 also eludes to. It disrupted the balance of human life and earth so severely, that the Creator decided to restart the process of life on earth.
Noah was given the same instructions as Adam and Eve – Gen.9:7 -”But as for you, be fruitful and multiply; spread out across the earth and multiply upon it.” Wickedness is still part of humanity, but we have been given the Savior which is the Son of God, Christ Jesus, to lead us into the Light of Truth.
Genesis 6:4 Jude 1:6 Nephilim 👍🙏
When God mentioned to Adam and Eve about the bad consequences of eating from tree of knowledge of good and evil, in their innocence, why did Adam and Eve not ask "what is DEATH ?" if it was not unknown to them !
Hi Larry, I have returned home now and have taken the time to read your responses and scriptural quotes to my original response to your comment. They are interesting verses but I don't really see how they support your idea that
I was under the impression that death and disease in the plant and animal kingdom were the results of sin. I know that it is a difficult issue and C S Lewis devotes a whole chapter to it in his book, "The Problem of Pain". I must read it again - not that Lewis has the answers but he does give some ideas to consider.