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
The central way Christ functions as the perfect image and exact representation of God is by dying on the cross. While Christ’s entire life manifests the true God, Christ came primarily to die. It was his death that defeated the devil and freed us from bondage. The one who does what is sinful is of…
In a recent paper delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society, Paul Copan raised a number of objections against my book, Crucifixion of the Warrior of God. This is the first of several blogs in which I will respond to this paper. (By the way, Paul and I had a friendly two-session debate on Justin Brierley’s…
“Only a person who is aware of the crucified Christ can properly understand Scripture.” Luther (Table Talks) In the last three posts I’ve been wrestling with how insights from Matthew Bate’s book, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation might help us interpret violent portraits of God in the OT in a way that discloses how…
“The cross is the central way Christ images God. Christ was not an innocent third party who was punished against his will to appease the Father’s wrath. Christ is himself God, and he voluntarily took our sin and its just punishment upon himself. Hence his sacrifice does not appease God’s wrath; it reveals God’s love.…
In my previous blog I argued that Jesus’ experience of God-forsakenness on the cross was genuine and that, as a matter of fact, there was a genuine abandonment of Jesus by the Father on the cross. In fact, I am convinced that a good deal of our theology hangs in the balance on our affirming…
There is a storm beginning to brew on the horizon. It is a debate among Evangelicals about the violent depictions of God, stirred up largely by Eric Seibert’s Disturbing Divine Behavior. Here is a post that sounds “the clarion call.” The debate is presently around two options. Option #1: Traditionalists argue we must simply embrace…