Debate. Two opposing viewpoints, yet both can be supported by Scripture. Can both views be right when they appear to be direct opposites? And can we even know the truth? Or should we write off all such problems as things that can’t be known by man, only by God?
Sometimes I fear that, in order to avoid controversy or further biblical study, we are too quick to pronounce something not knowable or understandable, citing Deut 29:29a to back up our point: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God…” But take a look at the last part of v 29: “… but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” We can’t know the whole mind of God; if we did, we would be His equal. God does have secrets He has revealed to no one, nor could we understand them if He did, and we are not accountable for them. However, we are accountable for all that He has revealed.
Of course this verse was referring to only the very small portion of the OT that the Hebrews had at the time. Today we have the completed canon, and like Israel of old we are accountable for it. We are to study it and make it our goal, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to understand it and view the world around us from its perspective.
Take for instance this question: How should we view the catastrophes that hit Louisiana several years ago and now recently, Haiti? One group of evangelicals has pronounced them to be judgments from God on a sinful city/country; another group says that’s ridiculous, God doesn’t work that way! But both sides quote Scripture to support their views, so how can one side be right and the other, not? Has Scripture even revealed enough information for us to discern why things like this happen today? Or, should the reasons behind such calamities be considered one of the secret things of God?
I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I propose if we look at the verses that each side is quoting as proof text in the light of their immediate contexts as well as in the whole scheme of the Bible, we can determine which side is correct. When doing so, though, we must all start from the same place by remembering that the Bible is a progressive revelation and that it must be interpreted as such. Scripture must also be interpreted literally or plainly, thereby avoiding imposing a completely different meaning on something previously revealed because of subsequent revelation. In other words, later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different. It may add to it, or even supersede it, but it does not contradict it.
So let’s look at the Scripture each side uses to support its position.
Interestingly, both use Luke 13:1-5: "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." They merely emphasize different parts of it. Those who say these catastrophes are not meant as punishment point to the bolded parts, and those who say they are, to those parts in red. Both truths are there, though. Some combine both truths into one thought as did D. Matthew Brown in his post “On Haiti: Unless You Repent, You Will Likewise Perish”:
“Christ does not say that these calamities were a fluke or that God had no hand in them, but he intimates that these things should be to sinners who still live a call to repentance, for he says, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (v. 13:5).
In other words, these calamities were not the result of grosser sin but neither were they simple tragedies. These events were foretastes of the wrath of God that will one Day consume all sinners, therefore, between that Time and this, the people should repent lest they suffer the same fate.”
Perhaps the question should then be raised, “What do these verses mean when they say ‘perish’?” Do they mean perish physically? Or spiritually? Or both? The one side seems to view its meaning as spiritual or spiritual and physical, while the other, physical or physical and spiritual — different emphasis, but only slightly.
Let’s look at some of the other verses quoted by those who hold that these calamities are judgments from God. Invariably, they are plucked from the OT, such as Gen 18-19; Lev 26:3-12; Deut 4:5-10, 5:32-33, 28:2-68, 30:15-20; Nah 2-3; Amos 3:6; Ezek 26; although Heb 12:5-10 is frequently mentioned, too.
And the argument generally goes something like this:
“The truth is that, starting with the famed episode in the Garden of Eden, people ever since Adam and Eve have chosen to live their own way, apart from God's revealed instruction and involvement in their lives. Romans 8:7 says humanity by nature does not want to live by the laws of God.
Sadly, mankind has chosen to abandon the laws of Almighty God that would bring us blessings, prosperity, happiness and protection from natural disasters. So He allows us to suffer the consequences of living our own way and also allows natural disasters to take their toll in human lives and suffering.
God pleads with mankind to reject going the way that seems right to us and instead open His instruction manual, the Holy Bible, and live by His way of life that will result in His blessings.”
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/haiti-earthquake-where-was-god.htm
Verses quoted by those who believe these natural disasters are NOT direct judgments from God (which I agree with, BTW) usually come from the Book of Job; the account of Joseph being sold into slavery and carried off to Egypt in Gen 37-47, as well as Gen 3-5, Rom 3:23, 6:23, 8:18-23, and 1 Cor 15:20-22; all of which tell us this world has been corrupted by sin but that God is in control.
The thing is, these verses do explain that because of the fall of man, bad things happen to good people. They do not, however, answer the question of whether or not cities/countries may still experience the judgment of God today like Israel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh, and Tyre, etc... did in the OT. Because the truth of the matter is, God did "work that way" in times past. If, in fact, He isn't still doing so today, we must explain why He isn't. And I believe we can do that by looking at the progression of Scripture.
Sometimes I fear that, in order to avoid controversy or further biblical study, we are too quick to pronounce something not knowable or understandable, citing Deut 29:29a to back up our point: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God…” But take a look at the last part of v 29: “… but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” We can’t know the whole mind of God; if we did, we would be His equal. God does have secrets He has revealed to no one, nor could we understand them if He did, and we are not accountable for them. However, we are accountable for all that He has revealed.
Of course this verse was referring to only the very small portion of the OT that the Hebrews had at the time. Today we have the completed canon, and like Israel of old we are accountable for it. We are to study it and make it our goal, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to understand it and view the world around us from its perspective.
Take for instance this question: How should we view the catastrophes that hit Louisiana several years ago and now recently, Haiti? One group of evangelicals has pronounced them to be judgments from God on a sinful city/country; another group says that’s ridiculous, God doesn’t work that way! But both sides quote Scripture to support their views, so how can one side be right and the other, not? Has Scripture even revealed enough information for us to discern why things like this happen today? Or, should the reasons behind such calamities be considered one of the secret things of God?
I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I propose if we look at the verses that each side is quoting as proof text in the light of their immediate contexts as well as in the whole scheme of the Bible, we can determine which side is correct. When doing so, though, we must all start from the same place by remembering that the Bible is a progressive revelation and that it must be interpreted as such. Scripture must also be interpreted literally or plainly, thereby avoiding imposing a completely different meaning on something previously revealed because of subsequent revelation. In other words, later revelation on a subject does not make the earlier revelation mean something different. It may add to it, or even supersede it, but it does not contradict it.
So let’s look at the Scripture each side uses to support its position.
Interestingly, both use Luke 13:1-5: "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." They merely emphasize different parts of it. Those who say these catastrophes are not meant as punishment point to the bolded parts, and those who say they are, to those parts in red. Both truths are there, though. Some combine both truths into one thought as did D. Matthew Brown in his post “On Haiti: Unless You Repent, You Will Likewise Perish”:
“Christ does not say that these calamities were a fluke or that God had no hand in them, but he intimates that these things should be to sinners who still live a call to repentance, for he says, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (v. 13:5).
In other words, these calamities were not the result of grosser sin but neither were they simple tragedies. These events were foretastes of the wrath of God that will one Day consume all sinners, therefore, between that Time and this, the people should repent lest they suffer the same fate.”
Perhaps the question should then be raised, “What do these verses mean when they say ‘perish’?” Do they mean perish physically? Or spiritually? Or both? The one side seems to view its meaning as spiritual or spiritual and physical, while the other, physical or physical and spiritual — different emphasis, but only slightly.
Let’s look at some of the other verses quoted by those who hold that these calamities are judgments from God. Invariably, they are plucked from the OT, such as Gen 18-19; Lev 26:3-12; Deut 4:5-10, 5:32-33, 28:2-68, 30:15-20; Nah 2-3; Amos 3:6; Ezek 26; although Heb 12:5-10 is frequently mentioned, too.
And the argument generally goes something like this:
“The truth is that, starting with the famed episode in the Garden of Eden, people ever since Adam and Eve have chosen to live their own way, apart from God's revealed instruction and involvement in their lives. Romans 8:7 says humanity by nature does not want to live by the laws of God.
Sadly, mankind has chosen to abandon the laws of Almighty God that would bring us blessings, prosperity, happiness and protection from natural disasters. So He allows us to suffer the consequences of living our own way and also allows natural disasters to take their toll in human lives and suffering.
God pleads with mankind to reject going the way that seems right to us and instead open His instruction manual, the Holy Bible, and live by His way of life that will result in His blessings.”
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/haiti-earthquake-where-was-god.htm
Verses quoted by those who believe these natural disasters are NOT direct judgments from God (which I agree with, BTW) usually come from the Book of Job; the account of Joseph being sold into slavery and carried off to Egypt in Gen 37-47, as well as Gen 3-5, Rom 3:23, 6:23, 8:18-23, and 1 Cor 15:20-22; all of which tell us this world has been corrupted by sin but that God is in control.
The thing is, these verses do explain that because of the fall of man, bad things happen to good people. They do not, however, answer the question of whether or not cities/countries may still experience the judgment of God today like Israel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh, and Tyre, etc... did in the OT. Because the truth of the matter is, God did "work that way" in times past. If, in fact, He isn't still doing so today, we must explain why He isn't. And I believe we can do that by looking at the progression of Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment