Sometimes the Bible depresses me. Yes, I know this is not the response I am supposed to have. And I have experienced all the good stuff (refreshing of the spirit, direction for life, encouragement to persevere) that testimonies about the Bible usually contain. Strangely, my depression comes when I take the Bible seriously—when I pay attention to what it says instead of just reading my favorite verses again and again.
Recently my Sunday school class studied Jesus’ teaching about the narrow and broad way:
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the ways broad that
leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is
small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Matt. 7:13—14
Although the words “destruction” and “life” may not be about hell and heaven, more go to destruction than life. And in this context (see v. 21), Jesus seems to be talking about those who make it into his kingdom and inherit eternal life.
If this outcome (most lost and a few saved) was God’s plan from the beginning, it seems like a terrible plan. It is depressing. Imagine planning a school trip but knowing that the bus load of kids will go off the road into the river. And also knowing that ten of the thirty kids will escape alive. Knowing most will drown in the sinking bus, would we go ahead with the planned trip? Would any sane person say, “Let’s do this! Ten will be saved!” But what if you loved all thirty kids with a perfect love? How could you say this is a good plan?
Solution One: What’s on TV? Let’s just not think about these verses. Do you think the Trailblazers can come back and win the series against the Spurs?
Solution Two: God is God and can do whatever He wants. Who are we to say his plan is terrible? Read Romans 9:20! If God has planned from eternity for some to burn for eternity, who are we to criticize?
Solution Three: God gave everyone the freedom to choose life or death, but knew most would be lost. He went ahead with his plan for the sake of the few who choose to enter the narrow gate. The many destroyed (because they refuse salvation) is the price God is willing to pay for some to be saved.
Solution Four: Sin and destruction were never God’s plan and even Adam and Eve had the freedom to obey God rather than the serpent. God was waiting to see what Adam and Eve and mankind would choose to do.
I suspect the first solution is my default setting. I have enough positive and uplifting verses underlined to make my own gospel—I don’t need to think about this depressing stuff. It is easy not to think about the implications of our proclamations.
The second solution is a theological way of saying, “Shut-up”. It may sound like a defense of God’s sovereignty, but gives us many reasons to question whether God is love. My question isn’t whether God is just, but rather what view is consistent with the idea of a loving Heavenly Father. No view of the sovereignty of God should violate the biblical revelation of His love.
The third view is attractive because it preserves the foreknowledge of God. It is, however, troubling because it means God embarked on plan that He knew would fill hell with people. Why would God go ahead with a plan that He knows will result in those he loves suffering for eternity?
Solution four gets rid of the bad plan (few saved, most lost) by arguing that in the beginning this wasn’t the plan. It asserts, however, that God did not have foreknowledge of what Adam and Eve would choose. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, God would have established his dominion over the earth through their unfallen off-spring. In this view, God is not so limited that he needs our sin to accomplish his purpose.
The fourth approach also seems compatible with the heart of a loving father. We have children knowing that they will have the freedom to plunge into sin and break our hearts. We also know they are free to choose Christ –to choose life. I am sure that if some parents, some with children now in prison, had perfect foreknowledge of everything their children would do, they would have chosen to not have children.
We might be tempted to say it is different with God, but consider Genesis 6: 5—6:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was very great on the
earth, and that every intent of his heart was only evil continually. The
Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved
in His heart.
It really makes no sense for God to regret making man if from the beginning He knew this all would happen. If all this sin was foreseen or part of his plan, why would He regret having made man? If he really knew that he would regret having made man, why did he do it?
God values real relationship so much that He risked us choosing sin rather than Him. It was a huge risk. In Adam and Eve’s fall we all fell. I could object that the risk was too great—that the few saved are not worth the destruction of the many.
It is at this point I am lost. Why does God value us so much? Does He need the redeemed so much that He would risk most folks being lost? But surely God needs nothing—not even us. So does Jesus need a bride? And what does that mean? Is there a difference between God wanting something and God needing something?
Whatever it is that God is about—it must be important enough for Him to risk some being lost for eternity. Ultimately God’s joy over the redeemed may be greater that his grief over the lost. I don’t get this. The good that follows the Bride being united with the Bridegroom may produce something wonderful enough to justify the risk God has taken.
This is a little less depressing—a little more exciting, but mostly sobering.
