I was at a church last night, which I'm not going to name. Unusually, they had an ordinand (like me) preaching, but not from my college. He was speaking from Psalm 92 and some of what he said was good and helpful, but other bits weren't.
His main points were:
- we should be glad because of God's works (v1-5)
- we should be glad because of God's victory (v6-11)
- we should be glad because of God's blessing (v12-15)
Nothing wrong with that. Being glad because of God's works was especially well handled. Yes, chunks of it were lifted from Piper's discussion of CS Lewis, but there's nothing wrong with that once in a while.
What annoyed (and surprised) me was one of his applications of the second point. The Psalm is rejoicing in the future destruction of the wicked who oppose both God and the royal/priestly Psalmist. One of the ways the preacher applied that was to our response to people who sleep around - essentially implying that we should respond by rejoicing in their future destruction!
Now to my mind, that isn't even Christian. Yes, the guy is probably a Christian and didn't mean to say that or got mixed up or something, but it's an outrageous thing to say. Much much much better to see ourselves as naturally God's enemies (which he didn't mention) and recipients of God's blessing only by grace. Thankfully, the service leader drew it back that way afterwards.
If we're going to apply passages like that to "enemies" today, it should be enemies who oppose God's people and God. But I don't think applying it even to Richard Dawkins works. We shouldn't rejoice in his future destruction.
God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should turn from their wickedness and live.
Book of Common Prayer
So how should we apply it? The obvious answer is to our spiritual enemies. After all, our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
And then I got thinking. There are quite a few examples in the Old Testament of rejoicing in God's judgement on the wicked, but it's not something I feel inclined to - I would much rather that they repent, and considering the fate of those who don't know Jesus moves me towards tears rather than anywhere else. I wish I could say it moved me to tears more often - it certainly moved Jesus there.
I can't think of a single example of rejoicing in the death of the unrepentant wicked in the New Testament. There are examples of rejoicing in the defeat of the devil, even in the downfall of institutions and authorities that set themselves up against God, but not in individual sinners.
But I can't see why that should change between the Old and New Testaments. In both, our salvation is by grace and our response to wickedness should be "there but for the grace of God go I". Is it an effect of the way that the covenant becomes internal rather than external? Is it because the priestly and kingly roles are subsumed in Christ, so that in a sense he is the only Annointed One? Is it because it is even clearer that salvation (past, present and future) is by grace? Any bright ideas?
11 comments:
The classic discussion of the general question here is 'Why Saints in Glory Will Rejoice to See The Torments of the Damned' by Jonathan Edwards. It is on-line at, e.g.:
http://tuscanycircle.net/drupal/node/563
I think there's a difference between rejoicing in God's judgement from the point of view of heaven and our attitude to fellow sinners now while the possibility of repentance remains open.
There's also a difference between rejoicing now in the future destruction of the unrepentant as a class (which is fine, and what the psalmist is doing, I think) and rejoicing now in the future destruction of Joe Bloggs (which is not fine, as we cannot know whether Joe Bloggs will eventually repent or not). I doubt we can even rejoice now in the future destruction of Hitler, for we don't know for certain that he didn't repent in the last few seconds. But can we rejoice now in the future destruction of Pharaoh and Judas? Yes, I think so. But what then about Ezekiel 18:23, which you quote by way of the Book of Common Prayer? Does that not say that God doesn't delight even in their deaths? This is (part of) what John Owen has to say on the passage at http://tinyurl.com/25vcg4:
To add no more, this whole place, with the scope, aim, and intention of the prophet in it, is miserably mistaken by our adversaries, and wrested to that whereof there is not the least thought in the text. The 388words are a part of the answer which the Lord gives to the repining Jews, concerning their proverb, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Now, about what did they use this proverb? Why, “concerning the land of Israel,” verse 2, the land of their habitation, which was laid waste by the sword (as they affirmed) for the sins of their fathers, themselves being innocent. So that it is about God’s temporal judgments in overturning their land and nation that this dispute is; wherein the Lord justifieth himself by declaring the equity of these judgments by reason of their sins, even those sins for which the land devoured them and spewed them out; telling them that his justice is, that for such things they should surely die, their blood should be upon them, verse 13, — they shall be slain with the sword, and cut off by those judgments which they had deserved: not that the shedding of their blood and casting out of their carcases was a thing in itself so pleasurable or desirable to him as that he did it only for his own will, for let them leave their abominations, and try whether their lives were not prolonged in peace. This being the plain, genuine scope and meaning of this place, at the first view presenting itself to every unprejudiced man, I have often admired how so many strange conclusions for a general purpose of showing mercy to all, universal vocation and redemption, have been wrested from it.
So would you then agree that to rejoice in the prospect of the future destruction of friends of yours who were sleeping around is a Bad Thing?
I suppose that we see it more clearly in David's attitude to Absalom - at the same time wanting his downfall (because he stood against the Lord's Anointed One) and grieving at his death.
I'd say that to rejoice in the prospect of the future destruction of friends that persist in unrepentantly sinning (whether sleeping around or anything else) is OK, since this class is just a subclass of the unrepentant sinners. But it's not OK for me to rejoice in the future destruction of my friend Joe Bloggs on the ground that he is currently unrepentantly sinning (whether sleeping around or anything else), as I don't know whether God will bring him to repentance or not.
David doesn't rejoice at Absalom's future destruction, does he?
No - though he prays for his teeth to be broken in Psalm 3:7.
I think you put it more harshly than I would. I'd say that we should delight in God's justice, but not in the death of sinners per se.
And our desire for individual sinners should most certainly be to hope, pray and strive for their repentance rather than their damnation. Our attitude to them should be that they are no worse than we are, save by the grace of God.
'I'd say that we should delight in God's justice, but not in the death of sinners per se.'
Do you mean that we should delight in God's attribute of justice but not in the fact that he has to exercise it? Or that we should delight in the fact that his justice is exercised but not in the consequent fact that sinners have to die?
Do you think this goes even for the next life, then, thus disagreeing with Edwards?
Do you think this goes even for God, thus disagreeing with supralapsarianism?
I think there are plenty of examples in Scripture of both God and his people rejoicing not in God's justice itself or the strict exercise of it, but in the punishment of evil, e.g. the downfall of Satan, of Babylon (Revelation 18:20), the wicked (Ps. 92:7) etc. Indeed, in the psalm you have just quoted (Ps. 3:7) David doesn't rejoice in the strict fact of God's judgment over the wicked but in the breaking of their teeth.
Or that we should delight in the fact that his justice is exercised but not in the consequent fact that sinners have to die?
Yes
Do you think this goes even for the next life, then, thus disagreeing with Edwards?
I don't know.
Do you think this goes even for God, thus disagreeing with supralapsarianism?
Of course I'm a supralapsarian - I don't think the alternatives are internally consistent. But I think at the same time we need to recognise that God's destruction of the wicked is in a sense his "strange work" and "alien task" (to quote Isaiah 28:21, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem).
I think if we are to share the longings of God who does not want anyone to perish and who does not delight in the death of the wicked, we should be genuinely saddened and grieving at its necessity. Jesus wept over Jerusalem rather than delighting over its destruction.
As I have written before, I see no instances in the NT of delighting over the death of sinners. Humiliation, yes (e.g. the Magnificat). Fall of the devil and institutions (e.g. Babylon, the Beast), yes. But sinners, no.
Thanks for this, Custard.
The Devil and Babylon (Rev. 18:4-5) are both depicted in the Bible as unrepentant sinners. Why do you think it goes differently for them than for other unrepentant sinners?
And why do you think it might be OK to delight in someone's just humiliation but not in his or her just destruction?
And why do you think that it might be OK to rejoice in the next life in someone's just destruction but not in the here and now?
Concerning Jesus's example of weeping over Jerusalem, this is what A. W. Pink has to say at http://tinyurl.com/yrwgh9:
Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem is often regarded as His lamentation over lost sinners. Such was not the case. Verses 43, 44 show plainly that He had before Him the destruction of the city. As He foresaw the awful siege and contemplated the unparalleled temporal calamities, He was deeply moved. As a nation, the doom of the Jews was sealed: the things belonging to their civic peace were now hid from their eyes. But so far from their spiritual state being hopeless, or Christ bewailing that, He knew full well that in a few weeks at most thousands of them would believe to the saving of their souls!
I'm interested to see what you say about supralapsarianism: could you do a separate post on this sometime?
The Devil and Babylon (Rev. 18:4-5) are both depicted in the Bible as unrepentant sinners. Why do you think it goes differently for them than for other unrepentant sinners?
I should have clarified. Unrepentant human sinners.
And why do you think it might be OK to delight in someone's just humiliation but not in his or her just destruction?
Because humiliation can bring about repentance (e.g. Dan 4) and is all that is required for the reestablishment of God's visible supremacy.
And why do you think that it might be OK to rejoice in the next life in someone's just destruction but not in the here and now?
Because now I'm fallible and might be wrong. Because I think it's part of the now/not yet tension.
Concerning Jesus's example of weeping over Jerusalem, this is what A. W. Pink has to say...
Well, I disagree with Pink in that case. Why would Jesus be grieved over the destruction of the city but not of the people within it?
And why does he link it so explicitly to their rejection of him?
I'm interested to see what you say about supralapsarianism: could you do a separate post on this sometime?
When the opportunity presents itself.
Thanks for this, Custard.
Why do you think it's OK to rejoice over unrepentant non-human sinners than over unrepentant human sinners?
The purpose of the destruction of the wicked is also the reestablishment of God's visible supremacy, so why do you think it's OK to rejoice in the humiliation of the wicked but not their destruction? (Note also that the prospect of Judas's forthcoming destruction might move others to repentance in the here and now.)
We already know here and now that (a) the class of the unrepentant wicked will be destroyed and (b) that Pharaoh and Judas are members of that class.
Can you clarify your question 'And why does he link it so explicitly to their rejection of him?', please? Are you referring to v.44d 'because you did not know the time of your visitation'? I suspect Pink would say that Jesus weeps over the destruction of the city because of the suffering it will cause to the elect in the city: the city as a whole rejects Christ and the city as a whole suffers for it, including the elect in the city. (It's quite a common Reformed theme to say that the elect suffer the common punishment of humanity for rejecting Jesus, until wheat and chaff are finally separated. I am sceptical.)
Incidentally, on the description of God's work as 'strange' or 'alien' in Isaiah 28:21, John Gill has this to say at http://tinyurl.com/2tu5w4:
[God's work] may be called so, because in the above mentioned instances he fought for his people Israel, but in this he would fight against them; and because this was a work and act of strict justice and awful severity, and not so agreeable to him as acts of mercy, grace, and goodness, in which he delights; or rather, because it was an unusual one, marvellous and surprising, and would be so to the Jews themselves, and even to their enemies, and to all the world, as the destruction of Jerusalem was, especially as by the Romans; see Hab 1:5. Vitringa, besides this, adds the calling of the Gentiles, the seizing of the inheritance of the world, and the destruction of the kingdom of Satan in the Roman empire.
So, it's not 100% clear that this is saying that the work of destruction, punishment, reprobation etc. is unnatural to God.
Post a Comment