I read an interesting article on historicity by C.S. Lewis. Lewis loves the Historian but does not hold the same affection for the Historicist. (You will have to read his article entitled "Historicity" to gain a better understanding on how he differentiates the two.)One of the examples of historicism that Lewis rebukes is the notion that all natural disasters are the "judgments of God" or the "divine wrath."
I remember after the SE Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, there was no small discussion about these disasters being a type of divine judgment. People walked the streets with signs, pastors went live on television and radio and preachers everywhere decried the sinful cities and stated boldly that God was angry. To a lesser degree, I was inclined to agree.
Consider this quote from Lewis:
...we must insist that such an interpretation of history was not the characteristic of ancient Hebrew religion, not the thing which sets it apart and makes it uniquely valuable. On the contrary, this is precisely what it shares with popular Paganism. To attribute calamity to the offended gods and therefore to seek out and punish the offender, is the most natural thing in the world and therefore the world-wide method. Exampes such as the plague in Iliad A and the plague at the opening of the Oedipus Tyrannus come at once to mind... The distinctive thing, the precious peculiarity of Scripture is the divine rebuffs which this naive and spontaneous type of Historicism there receives; in the whole course of Jewish history, in the the Book of Job, In Isaiah's suffering servant, in our Lord's answers about the disaster at Siloam (Luke 13) and the man born blind (John 9). If this sort of Historicism survives, it survives in spite of Christianity...
Lewis goes on to profoundly elaborate on our role of considering history. I will neither plagurize nor comment further on those elaborations except to say that I was reminded that natural disasters may well be divine judgments. And they may not be. We learn several things from the examples mentioned above.
From Job we learn that neither righteousness nor sinfulness are the determining causes of disaster or comfort. We learn that disaster is not always brought upon mankind for judgment's sake.
From Jesus' comments on Siloam, we learn that those who suffer disaster are no more sinful than those who've survived. We learn that the survivors and onlookers need to repent.
From the blind man we learn that God does things for His glory. An apparent disaster or misfortune may be entirely for the glory of God.
From this point, as the "crazies" shout out in the streets,
"Repent! This is the judgment of God!"
we can say
"I don't know if this is the judgment of God, but I agree with the repent part. I don't know if this a demonstration of the divine wrath, but I know we will all face that wrath one day. Thank the Lord that we have one more opportunity to turn to Him. One more opportunity to repent. One more opportunity to know that He is God and to say 'to Him be the glory' whether peace or calamity."
10 comments:
Hi Jason,
I'm inclined to believe that natural disasters are the judgment of God upon the wicked but it is simply suffering for the righteous that ultimately brings glory to God by the way the righteous respond to these events. To respond to another objection made by Lewis that this idea is contrary to Jewish theology, listen to Amos, "If disaster overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible?" (Amos 3:6b). And what about Luke 13? It teaches the very opposite of what Lewis is saying. These so called "natural calamities" were divine judgments that fell upon sinners. And Jesus' point, if you don't repent (turn away from your sins), the same fate might befall you. This makes sense because the Jews were thinking the ones who got killed deserved it because they were really bad sinners and Jesus turns the tables on them and says you are like them (equally sinful) and the same fate/judgment might befall you as them. Let me conclude and say that every "natural disaster" or "accident" is the divine judgment upon the unregenerate sinner but the same event is construed as suffering for righteousness for the saved. What do you think?
Sean Katinga
S.K.,
This is my first theological battle on Hypocretan, so bear with me. I'm not well educated you know.
My first point of rebuttal (though I agree for the most part) is that neither Amos 3 nor Luke 13 are really "natural disasters." They are more like "conflict-induced" disasters. But who knows why the tower really fell over? Hmmm. Strong wind? In defense of Lewis' "Historicity," I must say this was a small point in a large article. However, he did only mention "natural disasters." Not wartime takeovers or other violent aggressions.
My second point of rebuttal (though I agree for the most part) is that there is a biblical precedent that natural disasters do happen for purposes other than divine judgment. I think we can gather from John 9 and Luke 13 that Jesus was correcting their view of this type of "accident." The same could be said for the Job situation.
I am in full agreement with your other thoughts.
I would also like to add this (because I agree for the most part): Sometimes divine judgment is perceived as a "negative" thing. Certainly punishment of any sort is painful at the moment it is administered (or more accurately...received). But divine judgment itself is first, loving, and then second, just. I think this is important. So when a big landslide buries a campful of Christian campers in Northern California, we know how to respond. In our minds we think of "disaster" and "divine sovereignty" and "loss" and "suffering." But with our lips, we say (so as to comfort) "God has taken them home."
Now repent, lest you all likewise perish.
jw
Please define natural disaster. Do you include John 9 under that definition.
One quick point, I'm inclined to loving disagree with you on the Luke 13 passage. Divine judgment is written all over the passage. This is part of the reason Jesus exhorts his audience to repent or perish. Rather than refute the point that the natural disaster there is an act of divine judgment, it establishes it.
Let me know what you think. Got to run, or I'll be late for you.
Still in the grip of grace,
Sean
I think I figured out the problem! I am reading the Luke 13 passage that begins on page 1683. :)
Its says:
1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 "Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Verse 1 mentions a calamity which I would not label "natural." When I refer to the natural, I am referring to those things which appear "accidental" or outside of the direct influence of man. This might include tornadoes, hurricanes, volcano eruptions etc. However, I would also include physical deformities (John 9) and certain unexplained accidents like "freak" car accidents, the collapse of the Bridge of San Luis Rey (those this was fiction) and the random toppling of towers. I am certain there is a logical explanation for the collapse of the tower at Siloam, however since it seems to be a "freak" accident, with no ready explanation, I will call it "natural." Again, verse 1, seems to be a conflict-induced calamity. It does not seem to be "natural."
In Luke 13, Jesus is teaching two important ideas. He is correcting their view of God and His Judgment. And He is correcting their view of the God and His Kingdom. I too see Luke 13 as having "judgment written all over it" but I believe Jesus is correcting their "Ha-ha-the-tower-fell-on-you-so-you-must-have-deserved-it-because-all-natural-calamities-are-meant-to-wipe-the-wicked-from-the-earth" theology. And in John 9 He is correcting their "You-are-blind-because-of-sin-and-God-has-judged-you-you-poor-wretch-of-a-soul" theology.
Does this help?
Well stated, Jason. Would you say that Pilate's action and the falling of the tower were both acts used by God to judge those mentioned? Twice Jesus says that unless you repent you will all LIKEWISE perish. Do the righteous perish? No this is talking about judgment upon the unrighteous. And who is ultimately responsible for calamity, disaster, war, etc? Who is the ultimate power behind "natural calamity" or who uses raises up and puts down armies, even evil ones? I'm really enjoying this opportunity to be sharpened. I love the spirit in which these discussions are taking place. Love you my sweet brother and friend.
Thanks, Sean.
I firmly believe that "it is appointed once for man to die" and soon after "he will face the judgment." For us to assume that God is not involved would be a gross error on our part. And we know from Scripture that entire nations rise and fall by the hand of the Lord. Insofar as we understand that God is living and active in this world, we understand that no death (whether through violent aggression or natural calamity) is separate from the Lord's intention. And as previously stated, these deaths are timely (appointed) and inextricably linked to the individuals' judgements.
What I want to clarify in these discussions is that it is impossible to say that every natural calamity is a judgment for wickedness. While one could argue that death itself is a punishment for sin, I do not think this is in contradiction to what I am trying to get across. Peter would eventually die (because everyone must), but we would hardly argue that the vindictive nature of his death was a divine judgment. At least not in the "negative" sense. We also know that the Elect of God die in natural disasters. Do we say that their death was a wrathful judgment or a timely death?
When Jesus used "likewise" we must understand clearly what He meant. By "likewise," did He mean "the same manner of death?" No, of course not. This would infer that all of His hearers would die at the hand of Pilate or under a falling tower! What He mean't is that the hearers would all die. The use of "likewise" reminds us of the alternative option... "life." I still believe that Jesus has an essential disagreement with their interpretation of the events. He is answering the unspoken question, "Why did this happen?" with a correction of their understanding.
Going back to my original argument...does this mean we are going in circles?...I want us to stand on what we "know" in the face of natural disaster: We know all men must die and natural disaster is the way for some. We know God is ultimately responsible and if He does not want you to die...you won't. We know none are righteous and all need to repent. We know death is the appropriate wage and, in this sense, all death is appropriate, timely and appointed. However, we know that not all disasters are meant to execute a judgment. At one level, all disasters (that take lives) are judgmental. But we also know that the primary, overarching purpose is not always divine wrath. Since, on some occasions, the purpose of the calamity is unknown to us, we need to stick to our guns and preach what we know. The proverbial "terra firma of our doctrine: faith in Christ, repentance toward God, baptism in water, indwelling of the Spirit and life in the Spirit, the eventual return of Christ, God's holy, righteous and terrible wrath and His gracious, loving, eternal kindness toward those who believe.
Are we all "sharpened" now? You've whittled my sword down to a toothpick. But maybe its still sharp.
j
Toothpick or not, here I go again. I want to comment on your use of "likewise" in Luke 13. If I get what you're saying, Jesus meant that unless we repent we would also die? This doesn't make sense contextually. Contextually the manner in which they died - which speaks of judgment at God's hand - is the issue. It's another way of saying that unless you turn, you will burn. Repentance is the only way to escape judgment. Death is inescapable. Do you really believe that Jesus said that unless you repent you will all die. I think every person listening to Jesus knew that death was inescapable.
About natural calamities? Take the tower of Siloam, if it falls on the elect, then it is not judgment but God's permissive will but when it falls on the ungodly, then it should be viewed as divine judgment. This makes sense to me. Pilate kills the elect, then it is righteous suffering and if he kills the ungodly, then it is divine judgment. More than that, I don't know what to say.
I'm very grateful to God for giving me a brother that loves me enough to challenge my thinking on such important questions of theology and thought. Looking forward to more fruitful dialogue on other issues of faith, theology and christian living.
Love your heart and miss you so much it aches. Your friend and brother in Messiah.
Hey Sean,
I don't have much time today but I suppose these questions need to be answered:
Were the people who questioned Jesus wrong in their view of the judgment of God?
If not, was Jesus in complete agreement with their understanding of these events?
Does Jesus mean "perish" in the literal sense?
If so, does he mean "likewise" in the literal sense?
I still must contend that the people in Luke 13 and John 9 were ignorant of the divine purpose. But maybe I am too.
I think Jesus was in complete agreement of their interpretation of the events, i.e. Pilate and the tower. There is nothing wrong with the way they look at these events but the conclusions that they drew from these were grossly off the mark. It's like you said, they were under the impression that those who perish (judgment language again) deserved it, and forgetting that they too would come under God's judgment unless they too repented. Furthermore, I think, that Jesus means by "perish" coming under divine judgment and not simply death. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. Just replace the word perish with "die." You see, "unless you repent you likewise will die." Die how? In judgment, is the point. Death is not the issue but dying as a result of divine judgment. I hope this makes sense. Many Christians die but it is simply appointed as Hebrew 11:27 says. I think those who spoke mentioned these events to Jesus in Luke 13 understood something about divine judgment. It is clear to me that they did not have full light about the divine purpose or else they would have repented.
What am I saying in all this? When unbelievers die in what you call natural disasters (I hate the word "natural"), it is not a freak accident of nature but divine judgment but when the righteous die in the same event there is a glorious purpose other than judgment there. Who has understood the mind of God, the prophet would say. Thank you again for stretching me and challenging my convictions. Love you my friend and brother in our Savior Jesus.
hi jason,
i've tried to call you several times this weekend. hope you and yours are doing well.
Post a Comment