We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Does the Lord “Devastate” the Earth?
There is this passage that has sometimes been labeled “Isaiah’s Little Apocalypse” that proclaims how the Lord will “lay waste,” “destroy,” and “ruin” the earth. (The following builds on this previous post which identifies a dual speech pattern of God). It begins with:
The LORD is going to lay waste the earth
and devastate it;
he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants (24:1).
Isaiah goes on to decry that “the earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered” (Isa 24:3) because it has been “defiled by its people” who “have disobeyed the laws” and “broken the everlasting covenant” (vs. 5). Isaiah declares that “a curse consumes the earth” and “its people must bear their guilt” (vs. 6). When free moral agents fall, all that is under their authority falls with them.
Thus far a reader would be justified in assuming that the Lord himself was going to bring about the massive destruction Isaiah speaks of. We get a very different impression, however, if we continue reading, for we soon discover how the Lord planned on bringing about this curse. Relying on the typical ANE conception of anti-creational forces as hostile waters, and using language that is reminiscent of the reversal-of-creation flood account in Genesis, Isaiah proleptically declares:
The floodgates of the heavens are opened,
the foundations of the earth shake.
The earth is broken up,
the earth is split asunder,
the earth is violently shaken (Isa 24:18-9).
These passages indicate that way Yahweh curses the earth is simply by removing the protection (the “floodgates”) that had previously kept hostile cosmic forces at bay. And it is important to notice that, while Yahweh allows these forces to carry out their malevolent designs as a consequence of people’s rebellion, there is no suggestion in this or any other passage that God wanted these forces to be the way they are or that God causes these forces to engage in this destructive activity. To the contrary, Isaiah immediately adds that, once this judgment is complete, Yahweh will “punish the powers in the heavens” and will once again “shut them up” in a “dungeon” and a “prison” (vs. 22).
Just as we have seen God does with violent kings and wicked nations, the sovereign God makes wise use of evil agents as he finds them. But we must never misinterpret God’s willingness to use wicked cosmic forces, wicked nations, and violent kings as indicating his approval of their violence. For as God does in this passage, and as we have seen him do throughout Scripture, once God is done allowing these agents to carry out their destruction, God turns around and punishes them for being the kind of agents he could use for this purpose.
In any event, though it is clear that Yahweh judges the earth in Isaiah 24 by merely withdrawing protection, Isaiah nevertheless depicts him as actively cursing the earth. This passage thus illustrates once again the dual speech pattern that we’ve been discussing. Reflecting his culturally conditioned mindset in which ascribing violence to God was considered the highest form of praise, Isaiah depicts Yahweh doing what in in truth merely allowed.
Photo credit: _Hadock_ via Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC-ND
Category: General
Tags: Cruciform Theology, Judgment
Topics: Interpreting Violent Pictures and Troubling Behaviors
Related Reading
Should Innovative Theology Be Rejected?
In some conservative Christian circles innovation is suspect, if not sin. And as a result, theologians and pastors who take this stance often criticize what I propose in my writings simply because it’s innovative. However, I would like to suggest that the attitude that would dismiss hermeneutical or theological proposals simply on the grounds that…
A Cross-Centered Evaluation of Responses to Tragedy
I’d like to pick up where I left off on my previous post about Draper’s article entitled “Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief.” Toward the end of his article, Draper reports on an informal survey conducted by Stephen Prothero on his CNN Blog. Prothero simply asks people to respond to the question: “Where…
God’s Kind of Warfare
Over and over, and in a variety of different ways, we are told that, while “[s]ome trust in chariots and some in horses,” Israelites were to “trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Ps 20:7), for “[n]o king is saved by the size of his army” and “no warrior escapes by his great…
Was the Early Church Pacifistic? A Response to Paul Copan (#11)
In Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) I argue that Jesus and Paul instruct Christians to love and bless their enemies and to unconditionally refrain from violence (e.g. Matt 5:39-45; Rom 12:14-21). Moreover, I argue that this was the prevailing attitude of Christians prior to the fourth century when the Church aligned itself with the…
God’s Moral Immutability
Classical theologians from the fourth and fifth centuries on were very concerned with protecting their understanding of the metaphysical attributes of God—like timelessness, immutability, impassibility—by assessing biblical portraits that conflicted with these attributes to be accommodations. However, once we resolve that all our thinking about God must be anchored in the cross, our primary concern…
Podcast: Is the Cruciform Hermeneutic a Little Too New?
Greg looks at the history of the Cruciform Hermeneutic. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0446.mp3