Anyone who kept up with the Wittenburg Door at Covenant while I was there may recognize this; it will be new to everyone else. I wrote it shortly after 9/11/2001 in the context of a discussion over whether we could view the attack on the Twin Towers as the judgment of God. Some people were saying absolutely not while others thought that God's judgment was obvious. I got the impression that they might have been talking around each other. It is not a rare practice among fundamentalist types to identify a specific catastrophe as God's judgment upon a specific sin. I've actually heard it preached that such and such a storm, explosion, social problem, or whatever was the result of anything from legalized abortion and tolerance of homosexuals to taking prayer out of the public schools and the appearance of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show to the translation of the wicked NIV. However, as far as I could tell, no one in the discussion at Covenant was claiming anything like this. I wrote this post, originally entitled, "Reading Job," in an attempt to draw a distinction between this kind of ignorance and a legitimate recognition of God's judgment. Because it was written with the assumption that the readers could easily reference previous posts on the subject, I have changed parts of it to make it stand better on its own.
******************************************************************
Shortly after the events of 9/11, there was much talk about the role of God in major displays of evil. Is there a free will defense; God allowing evil to happen so as not to violate our autonomy? A viable defense in some parts of Christendom, perhaps, but not among those who claim to be Reformed. There remains the necessity, in all of our thoughts about God, not to compromise his sovereignty. Many Christians have looked at past calamities and jumped to the conclusion that, obviously, God is judging group A for sin B. The result being that they are able to rest comfortably in their own righteousness. Lack of judgment implies lack of sin. The same attitude is found in the pages of scripture. Take the disciples in their inquiry concerning the man born blind, "Who sinned, this man or his parents?" Jesus responded, "Neither." This should not be taken as any indication that the man or his parents were free from sin. The same thing applies when we read the book of Job: we should not see his description as blameless and upright as any indication that he was free from original sin and, therefore, immune from the condemnation of God. If we keep in mind Job's original sin and God's right to judge original sin, this will go a long way towards understanding how God could maintain his justice in the midst of Job's afflictions.
Job's friends made the same mistake that the disciples made and that many people today make. They assumed that Job must have committed something particularly atrocious in order to deserve what was happening to him. They assured him that, if he would just turn from these wicked deeds, God would relent. The principle behind this is often true; however, they absolutized it. By doing this, God was turned into nothing more than a genie. God condemns Job's friends; nevertheless, it wasn't because they assumed that Job's afflictions were the result of God's judgment. The problem came in the specifics of their assumption. God's stated reason for condemning them was that they had not spoken of him what was right (42:7).
If it is wrong to say that particular event A is God's judgment for particular sins B, isn't this in part because it is wrong to presume to know the mind of God when he has not revealed his specific intent? [There may be just such a correlation, but we have no way or right to point it out.] I find it hard to disagree. Yet, at the same time, I do not find warrant for retreating into the idea that all of God's works are mysterious to the degree that we can say nothing about them. It is correct to say that the ways of God remain hidden unless he chooses to make them the subject of revelation. It is not appropriate, however, to suggest that events occurring after the completion of the canon and, therefore, after the end of revelation, cannot themselves be the subjects of revelation. Once God has revealed how and when he acts among men, we can assume that he is unchangeable in this regard. We know of the efficacy of the prayers of the righteous because God reveals this in scripture. But we are not confined to attributing to God only the answers to those prayers for which we specifically see examples in scripture. We need not wonder if the answers to our prayers were actually just coincidence. But this assurance is only possible because of the revelation of God. In the same way, many historical events in the Bible are interpreted for us as acts of God's judgment. There is no reason to suppose that the same assumption cannot be made of historical events not recorded in scripture. What we are barred from assuming is who is being judged and why, specifically, it is happening. This would be a presumptuous intrusion into the mind of God. On the other hand, to claim that we cannot say whether or not present day calamities are the judgment of God is equally presumptuous in its willful ignorance of previous revelation.
God did condemn Job's three friends, but this wasn't because they had assumed that Job's afflictions were the result of the judgment of God. This assumption, in itself, was correct. Elihu also presupposed God's judgment, yet he was not condemned. The difference was not in assuming the fact of judgment. It was that Elihu preserved God's sovereignty and holiness when the three friends had not. Elihu understood the sovereign right of God in exercising judgment. This is because he believed in total depravity and original sin and, with this, the necessary idea that all men are already deserving of God's judgment. He expressed this idea in Job 34:23,24, "God has no need to examine men further, that they should come before him for judgment. Without inquiry he shatters the mighty and sets up others in their place." If our paradigm is an assumption of the basic goodness of mankind, we become incredulous at the idea that God's judgment could actually be behind the world's catastrophes. However, if we adopt a view of man's guilt before a holy God, there is no problem in interpreting tragedy as the judgment of God. The wonder comes when we also recognize the intermittent periods of relative peace as the undeserved mercy of God.
The question now is one of relevance. How does knowing that God performs his judgment in historical events rise above the level of academic philosophizing? Precisely in this: that in both mercy and judgment the message is repentance. Note Paul's comments in Romans 2:1-5, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."
Paul speaks of a 'day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.' This is a reference to the Day of the Lord, which is the culmination of history. It is a day in which both the justice and mercy of God will be revealed in their full glory, when the sheep will be separated from the goats, the righteous brought into the presence of the Lord, and the wicked consigned to hell. This Day is a major theme of scripture, especially of prophecy. From it flow all of God's acts in history, both cursing and blessing. The love of God for his church is not adequately comprehended unless it is placed in contrast to his hatred for his enemies. When we see God's kindness, tolerance, and patience we also see that these presuppose his right to judge and we are lead toward repentance. It also works the other way.
Luke 13:1-5 records the following incident, "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." Jesus is correcting the already mentioned assumption that those who are suffering tragedy must be under God's judgment because of some especially heinous sin. But notice that he is not correcting the idea that such events are indeed the judgment of God. They are not the final judgment of God: there is no reason to believe that all who died in them were eternally lost. They do, however, find their source in this final judgment and, in so doing, cry out for our repentance lest we too should perish. And just as it should not be thought that those on whom the tower fell had not repented, even so it should not be thought that repentance will save us from falling towers. Such an attitude may lead to a faulty conception of repentance. Repentance does indeed start when we stop and think of our own sins, but it also goes far beyond that. It is the forsaking of evil and following after the righteous law of God. This is only possible when we are granted faith to believe the gospel of redemption and judgment. Redemption of God's church at the price of the judgment of his Son.
Posted by kcourter at setembro 11, 2003 10:47 PM