Your question is tying unlike concepts together. That’s like saying, “How could anyone love a guy who holds up a umbrella in the rain?” The man was not holding up the umbrella in a love context; the action was not to show or incite love; he used the umbrella to keep from getting wet.
Let’s phrase the question this way: “Who can I love a judge who sentenced a serial murdered to life in prison without possibility of parole?” This question doesn’t make sense either, because the judge was carrying out the work of his office. He wasn’t sentencing the murderer in order to give or receive love from anyone.
God did not kill the people at the Flood in order that he may give or receive love. He was carrying out his responsibility as Judge of all. As we see in an passage telling us what it was like before the Flood (Gen. 4:16-26), the people treated murder casually, even to boast of committing it. God’s just course of action was to apply the death penalty. Unlike the people today, God knows the hearts of all people and can alone judge perfectly and righteously. His application of the death penalty was just.
What do you think?
a. In the article, I substituted a human judge for God to make my point clear. If you substituted “God” for a more human term with some of your questions, would they still seem reasonable, or not? For instance, “If God is so powerful, why doesn’t he stop all suffering?” What happens if we change that to: “If I have the means to help others worse off than me, why don’t I do so?” Since you have good reasons for not helping more people with the excess wealth you have, surely we can assume God has his reasons for not helping more.
b. If you are married, could people point out your failings and wonder why anyone would love you? Evidently your warts were not the reason you were loved. Is God’s giving of His Son on Calvary to die for our sins and save us from eternal punishment a better explanation of why his people love him?
// addFooter(); // ]]>