214 How Can I Believe in an Inconsistent God?

The picture of God in the Old Testament would suggest that God is very different than the way Jesus describes Him. But you say God does not change. So Jesus must have gotten it wrong. While it is true that God does not change there is something that is essential to see. It is the essence of God that does not change. Just like our instruction to our children changes as they growup so the way God relates to us changes as we grow. Join us to discover what it is about God that never changes. God is so amazingly consistent and invites us to believe in Him.

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR THE PDF

SHOW NOTES

God and Consistency—Transactional versus Covenantal Love

Good theory is consistent with itself. Good practice is consistent with good theory. The

physical laws of the universe are reliable and consistent and can be always depended on.

In the same way Christians believe that God’s character can be depended on to be reliable and consistent with love and goodness. They also believe that He has always been this way and thus there will be consistency in the story of God's interaction with people. The prophets record that God declares that He does not change. (Malachi 3:6). However, there seem to be inconsistencies in the Biblical record. A few of these are as follows.

The flood story suggests that God did change. During Noah’s time He became sorry

(Genesis 6:6) that He had created men and women and decided to wipe them all out. It

seems that either God had “forgotten” that He had originally pronounced all creation

"good" (Genesis 1:31) as He viewed the world or we must concede that God had changed

His mind about the “goodness” of His creation.

At the time of the giving of the law at Sinai God apparently decided to wipe the Israelites

out and start over with Moses' family (Exodus 32:9-10). This appears a very diJerent

attitude to that which God displayed in the invitations and promises made to Abraham.

Ezekiel assures us that God will not punish the son for the father's crimes.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,

neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

(Ezekiel 18:20)

The prophet Samuel is, however, quite clear that the Lord "struck" Bathsheba's child and it died because of David's sin:

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the

LORD to blaspheme, the child also [that is] born unto thee shall surely die. And

Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife

bare unto David, and it was very sick. (2 Samuel 12:14,15)

Has the prophet Ezekiel not read what Samuel has written? Are they referring to different

situations? On the surface these two writers seem to differ markedly.

At Mt Sinai the people are warned not to come near the mountain and yet those who do go up the mountain were greatly blessed (Exodus 24:9-10). The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) seems to indicate a fearful, judging God. In the metaphor of the vine (John 15:6; Rm 11:21), the unfruitful branches are cut oJ. In the parable of the wheat and weeds, the weeds are thrown into the fire. (Matthew 13:30)

But how can God judge and condemn the world in the light of For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (John 3:17)

Is Jesus different from God? But then God is the source of the grace and forgiveness we

received through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18). Is the cross a different and temporary

revelation of God to prove a point, to make a legal loophole to save sinners? Is God

gracious and forgiving or a strict disciplinarian and legalist at heart?

When Miriam rebelled against Moses' leadership she was punished with temporary leprosy. When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled they were executed together with their families. When Achan stole clothes from Jericho he was stoned together with his family and animals. When the Israelites stole God's tithes and offerings (Malachi 3) there were no executions as far as we know.

Moses is clear that the Lord will never leave or forsake His children. (Deuteronomy 31:6,

8). From the context Moses was referring to physical protection. yet the Israelites were

plundered and carried oJ into captivity. So how shall we explain this apparent

contradiction?

The traditional approach by Christian commentators on these stories is that God's

promises through Moses were conditional on Israelite obedience and when Israel rebelled God's protection left them. Success is then the result of God's promise and my

contribution of obedience or loyalty or faith. This is a risky option to take. The human

response can never be an adequate foundation on which to build salvation. The response

is never good enough and we are never fully aware of the larger picture of what is

happening in the universe. Surely John the Baptist was a hero of faith and yet he lost his life at Herod's cowardly, violent hand. The bigger picture can result in passages like:

Isaiah 57:1 (NIV) The righteous perish, and no-one ponders it in his heart; devout

men are taken away, and no-one understands that the righteous are taken away to

be spared from evil. 2 Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as

they lie in death.

Another possibility is to concede that while the Israelites were in rebellion and apostasy

they did not want God in their society. However, God did not leave them any more than He left Adam and Eve when they sinned. God was there, possibly unperceived and unwanted. It was the Israelites that left God, not vice versa. He followed, but at a distance, so as not to encroach on their freedom. Paul is clear on the matter.

I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means. (Romans 11:1)

The Jewish people are still God's people, loved and wanted by God. God is still with them

as much as they will allow.

It is also helpful to recognize that "unrighteousness" means, among other things, that sin is unpredictable. In Heaven and on the New Earth we will reap what we have sown, i.e. life will be predictable and fair. On this planet we will often not reap what we sowed, and we will often reap what we did not sow. Job, John the Baptist and Jesus are examples of

suffering because of unrighteousness on the planet. We must not allow unrighteousness

to cloud our thinking about God. We leave and desert God. He pleads with us to return. We hate God (Romans 8:7) but He loves us (Romans 5:8). If there is a separation between us and God it is we who have erected these barriers.

The apparent inconsistencies in the Scriptures are often the result of man's faulty

perceptions. Because God warns Noah about the coming flood the writer assumes that

God caused the flood. Because God comes to Sinai in His might and power the writer of

Exodus assumes that God is angry. Because God predicts the consequences of David's

immorality the writer assumes that God destroyed Bathsheba's child and caused Absalom to have sex with David's wives during the rebellion. These are the consequences of sin from which God cannot always protect David, especially when he steps outside the boundaries of the Decalogue.

One could take almost any of the stories in the Bible and re-interpret them in the light of

God's goodness and kindness, if one is so inclined. However, if one is not so inclined, the

apparent inconsistencies remain to trouble those who search for consistency. While we

have not addressed all the questions raised in this essay, the principle of a morally good

God has been addressed. If God is morally good then it is our responsibility to speak well

of God from a moral point of view. It also means that we will often come to different

conclusions than those suggested by the writers and commentators of many Scriptural

passages and stories.

Parables are parables and not allegories or stories. While some parables seem to portray

God as a judge, their point is that our choices and actions determine our destinies. The

judgement at the end of the world, so common in Christian thinking, may not be what it has been taken and taught to be. To be honest, it is hard to decide when the final judgement actually takes place. At the end of the world, Jesus comes to save all those who are willing. Some are unwilling and call for the rocks and the mountains to fall on them (Revelation 6:19). This is to choose mass suicide rather than the company of the Saviour of the World. It seems they have judged God unworthy of their presence.

We do have a consistent God. He has always worked and will always work for the salvation of sinners: who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth (1 Timothy 2:4 NLT).

Here is an example of this work of God.

Psalm 106:43 Many times he delivered them, but they were bent on rebellion, and

they wasted away in their sin. 44 But he took note of their distress when he heard

their cry; 45 for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he

relented. 46 He caused them to be pitied by all who held them captive.

Many, if not all, inconsistencies are a result of misconceptions about God. Why are the

misconceptions so popular and so entrenched? Perhaps because we prefer a “tame” God, a God who is more like we are because the presence of the real God is problematic for sinners. When He comes, in private or in public, there are not many who respond:

Surely this is our God; we trusted in Him, and He saved us. (Isaiah 25:9)

His presence has always disturbed us, but for those who will take the risk, His very

presence inspires hope for the future and courage to face the present.

Here is another way of understanding God’s role in the flood.

So, in Genesis 6, when the text records God’s declaration that He will send a flood to

destroy every living thing upon the earth, our first response should be shock and

confusion. This is quite out of character for everything we have learned about God

up to this point. And even if God decided it was necessary to destroy all humans,

why does He also decide to destroy all the birds and animals? Doesn’t this seem like

overkill? Stranger still, after declaring that He is disappointed with humanity

because of the sin and violence that covers the whole earth, God sets out to engage

in even greater violence by drowning every living person and animal upon the earth.

So in response to the all the violence, Genesis 6–8 portrays God as the most violent

one. Yet if violence was such a problem for God, why did God then turn around and

engage in the greatest act of violence possible? How are we to read this? Is

worldwide genocide okay if it is performed by God? Such an idea seems contrary to

everything Genesis has revealed about God up to this point.

One strange thing about the flood account is that when the flood waters do in fact

come upon the earth, God is never specifically stated as the one who sends them

(Gen 7: 10-12, 17-20). The only specifically stated activities of God was when He

shut the doors of the ark (Gen 7: 16) and sent the wind to blow back the waters (Gen

8: 1).

But was God so foolish as to not know that His violence against humanity would fail

to reform and rectify our violent behaviour? Of course not! We cannot accept that

an omniscient God would be that foolish and shortsighted. So instead, we must

admit that Genesis 8: 21 was written to help the reader see a truth about violence

that few people ever recognize. The truth about violence which Genesis 6–8 reveals

is that violence solves nothing. The truth about violence is that violence always and

only leads to more violence. JD Myers, Nothing but the blood of Jesus, 2017

“Consistency thou are a jewel” is true for God too. God is not unstable, changing his mind

periodically to suit his mood. He exists according to the principle of self-sacrificing, others centred love. If some writer claims God is harsh or arbitrary or vindictive or violent the writer has a perception problem. We can be sure of this truth because of the picture, the only eye-witness of God (John 1:18) gave us in the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5:43-48).

Luke 6:32-36 NLT “If you love only those who love you, why should you get credit for

that? Even sinners love those who love them! 33 And if you do good only to those who

do good to you, why should you get credit? Even sinners do that much! 34 And if you

lend money only to those who can repay you, why should you get credit? Even

sinners will lend to other sinners for a full return.

35 “Love your enemies! Do good to them. Lend to them without expecting to be

repaid. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting

as children of the Most High, for he is kind to those who are unthankful and

wicked. 36 You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate.

God is not transactional in his aJection for us. His relationship is covenantal. God’s love for

us not conditional as some inspired writers claim. His relationship with sinners is modelled by good parents and a new child. The child needs frequent cleaning and feeding. Often the parents are sleep deprived and subject to much wailing from the infant. They do not reject the child and put it up for adoption. Their relationship with this small child is covenantal, it has no conditions. This is a faint illustration of God’s relationship with us. If there is a hiatus in the relationship it is because we have distanced ourselves from God. God has great affection for each one of us. It will never change. He made his Creation so he could love and serve it.

Ian Hartley, revised August 2025

`