Part 2: Can God Look Upon Sin? | Hyperlinking Easter to Psalm 22 Series

This is Part 2 of a multipart series on the relationship between Jesus and Psalm 22. I hope to bring it to its conclusion on Good Friday.

REVIEW
Last week I opened this series with the following question: Did God the Father forsaken God the Son on the cross? In it I gave two premises that led to its logical conclusion affirming God has indeed forsaken Jesus on the cross, the common understanding held by many Christians. As a review, the syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: God in his purity cannot look on evil or sin (Hab 1.13).
Premise 2: Christ literally became our sin on the cross (2Co 5.21).
Conclusion 1: Hence, God in his purity cannot look on Christ who was sin.
Conclusion 2: Hence, God in his purity cannot be in the presence of sin that was in Christ.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, God must turn his back on Christ and abandon him on the cross.

Here in Part 2, I want to explore Premise 1 of the above syllogism.

CONTEXT MATETRS
It’s been said that context is king. And it’ll serve us well to know the context of any passage we’re studying.

Habakkuk was a prophet to the southern kingdom of Judah during its declining years (c 640-615 BC). He was perplexed. First, he was perplexed by the rampant sins of the Judahites, Yahweh’s chosen people. Evil trumped while the righteous suffered. Wickedness, violence and idolatry seemed to go unchecked and there was no sign of slowing down. The prophet was at a loss to the reason God tolerated wrongdoing for so long.

So he lodged a complaint to God, asking him why he wasn’t doing anything about evil and wickedness that’s polluting his promised land.

And when Yahweh finally answered him, Habakkuk was further perplexed by his response. His response was that he is about to do something regrading the unrestrained wickedness of his people. He will soon judge and punish Judah for their idolatry. And the kicker is, his chosen instrument of divine punishment is the pagan Babylonians, a nation even more wicked than Judah. 

Yahweh’s surprising response not only shocked Habakkuk but caused him even more consternation. The prophet was stupefied. Now he raises the question to God: How can you use these wretched barbarians to punish your covenant people? In other words, he was asking Yahweh how he could use wickedness for his divine purpose—in this case the brutal Nebuchadnezzar and his savage Babylonian army.

IS THAT REALLY WHAT THE TEXT SAYS?
And this is when we come across the text that formed Premise 1. It is found in Habakkuk 1.13 (ESV):

You who are of purer eyes than to see evil 
and cannot look at wrong,
why do you idly look at traitors
and remain silent when the wicked swallows up
the man more righteous than he?

This passage is written in Hebrew poetry. Thus, the first clue for us is that it contains figurative language. Our second clue is that while Habakkuk extolling of Yahweh’s holiness as the cause for his abhorrence to evil, that wasn’t his entire speech. If we stop reading after this part of the verse, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong” then we would arrive at the conclusion God indeed cannot look at evil.

But he calls into question God’s holy character in that he seems to tolerate wrongdoing by saying, “why do you idly look at traitors?” Here’s the interesting part. Earlier in Habakkuk 1.3 he used a similar language, “why do you idly look at wrong?” So, in his own assessment Habakkuk accuses God of seeing both wrongs and treachery where he ought not have done so. In his own admission, God is looking and seeing the wickedness all around, both in the Judahites and in the Babylonians. Essentially, the prophet’s faith in a holy God is shaken by his choice of the instrument of punishment. He couldn’t understand why God would use the vile to punish those who are “more righteous.” Habakkuk just couldn’t understand that, from Yahweh’s perspective, Judah is more wicked than the pagan Babylonians. 

Isn’t that the same problem we believers have, that in our own estimation we’re “more righteous” than the unbelievers? And I would venture to say that we would question God’s goodness or call his care for us into question when we see the wicked triumph while his children suffer.

DEBUNKING PREMISE 1
Before I complete my thoughts on Habakkuk’s assessment, I want to tackle this question from a logical standpoint. When Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, even though they could hide themselves from God, God nevertheless could still see them. Before the all-knowing God, they were naked in the truest sense. God saw them in their fallen state. As a matter of fact, I would say that from the very beginning humanity has forced the holy God to look upon sin and evil.

Further, if God has to turn his head from seeing sin like some of us who get queasy in the sight of blood, then how can such a God ever deal with his covenant people or even come to sinners to draw them closer to himself? He is hardly a sovereign and supreme God if an act of wickedness will cause him to turn his head and forsake his people. 

Hopefully you can see that logically and theologically, if God is truly too pure to look upon evil, then God should never look at any of us. Yet he did. He did so with intensity. And because he did so with intentionality, we were the beneficiary of it.

In conclusion, what some Christians hold as the “gospel truth”—in this case, Premise 1—is a false belief. Habakkuk not only didn’t say “God can’t look upon sin,” the reality is that he says the exact opposite. To him God can and does look upon sin and wrongdoing. God will not shy away from sin and evil because he know he can do something about it.

And I, for one, am glad that he did so and will continue to do so until he eradicates evil and wickedness altogether one day.

YOUR THOUGHTS
Generally, in a syllogism when one premise fails, then the entire argument falls. However, in the next blog I will address the premise that Christ literally became sin on the cross. To me this is another unscriptural belief taught by some that needs to go away.

But until the next blog, I’m interested to hear your feedback. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion? Why or why not? And what are some other beliefs many Christians hold dearly but really aren’t scriptural?