13 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:1-5).
9 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him (Jn 9:1-3).
4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it (Jn 11:4).
i) Natural evils are sometimes remedial or retributive punishment for sin.
ii) However, natural evils can, and often do, befall the righteous and unrighteous alike. Much suffering is due to original sin rather than personal sin. Due to the fall, humans are liable to suffering or death by disease, senescence, war, murder, starvation, poisoning, fatal accident, fire, natural disaster, &c.
iii) Apart from special revelation, we can't justifiably conclude that a particular illness or tragedy is divine punishment. Sometimes that's the case, but in many situations, that's not the case. Ironically, that connection is made by health-and-wealth charlatans.
There are heretics, infidels, or generally wicked folk who lead long, healthy, comfortable lives, viz. Hugh Hefner (89-), Robert Mugabe (91-), Adolf Grünbaum (92-), Mary Midgley (96-), Bertrand Russell (d. 97), W. V. O. Quine (d. 92), Martin Gardner (d. 95), Edward Teller (d. 95), Linus Pauling (d. 93), Leo XIII (d. 93), Hans Bethe (d. 98), Ernst Mayr (d. 100), John Hick (d. 90), Harry Emerson Fosdick (d. 91), Leni Riefenstahl (d. 101), Charles Hartshorne (d. 103).
So there's nothing approaching a one-to-one correspondence between holiness/orthodoxy and good fortune, or sin/heresy and ill-fortune. Indeed, there's no probable correlation.
Conversely, there are devout Christians who had short, often hard lives. Westminster Divine George Gillespie died at 35. Missionary Jim Elliot died at 28. Missionary Eric Liddell died at 43 of brain cancer. Robert Murray M'Cheyne died at 29. Missionary David Brainerd died at 29.
iv) We need to distinguish between individual divine judgment and collective divine judgment. In the nature of the case, collective judgments are indiscriminate. If God unleashes a pestilence on a community, those who become sick or die will be those with the least natural resistance to the contagion or those with the greatest contact, not those who are the most sinful. Collective judgments don't target sinners. Innocent and guilty alike will suffer.
v) There's a big difference between allowing for the possibility that ill-fortune is punishment for sin, and presuming that to be the case. Scripture warns us to avoid judgmental inferences (e.g. Job; Lk 13:1-5; Jn 9:1-3; 11:4).
vi) Since illness and tragedy are sometimes divine chastisement, a suffering Christian should make allowance for that possibility and consider if there are unexamined sins of omission or commission in his life. If, after he rectifies the problem, the illness abates, that might be evidence that it was remedial punishment. Even then, that's iffy.
Amos 4:6:11
ReplyDelete6“I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
and lack of bread in all your places,
yet you did not return to me,”
declares the Lord.
7 “I also withheld the rain from you
when there were yet three months to the harvest;
I would send rain on one city,
and send no rain on another city;
one field would have rain,
and the field on which it did not rain would wither;
8 so two or three cities would wander to another city
to drink water, and would not be satisfied;
yet you did not return to me,”
declares the Lord.
9 “I struck you with blight and mildew;
your many gardens and your vineyards,
your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured;
yet you did not return to me,”
declares the Lord.
10 “I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt;
I killed your young men with the sword,
and carried away your horses,
and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;
yet you did not return to me,”
declares the Lord.
11 “I overthrew some of you,
as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,
and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning;
yet you did not return to me,”
declares the Lord.
Here, we see God chastising the people for not repenting upon experiencing their sufferings - note the repeated refrain - 'yet you did not return to me'.
This is *before* the fact of this message from God (Amos 4:6-11) pronouncing that their sufferings were from Him because of their sins. Yet God clearly expected that these sufferings should have *already* caused them to turn to Him in repentance.
This teaches that we must not say that suffering is inscrutable with respect to discerning that it's cause may be our sin.
We find the same idea in Revelation 9:20-21.
I would add though, that the gravity of the sin and gravity of suffering do play a part in this discernment. A paper-cut isn't in view, for example.
Henry
Delete1. Of course, the real issue isn't about Amos or Revelation. At best, they're secondary supporting arguments. Arguments that have already been dealt with too.
2. Since Amos and Revelation aren't the ultimate issue, let's cut straight to the chase. The real issue is (Henry claims there's "very good reason to consider cause and effect" in Becky Groothuis' suffering (e.g. dementia). Henry claims Becky's suffering (e.g. dementia) is the result of her "sin" of egalitarianism. Henry claims Becky is like "Jezebel" and "on a bed of suffering for false teaching."
Hence the question is how Henry knows this to be true in Becky's case? What's the "very good reason to consider cause and effect" in Becky's specific case?
After about 70 back and forth comments in a previous thread, as well as this thread too, Henry still hasn't said. He hasn't said on what basis he has "very good reason" to believe Becky's suffering is due to her egalitarianism.
3. All Henry has done is to point to the fact that there's some biblical support for connecting sin and suffering. However, that's not a point that's in contention. We have no problem saying that. But the question remains: how does Henry know this to be so in Becky Groothuis' case?
4. All this is apart from the fact that Henry is assuming without argument that egalitarianism is a false teaching worthy of God's wrath. Rather than, say, a mistaken teaching that reasonable Christians may be able to disagree on. At least Henry never makes the argument one way or the other. He just assumes it's the case that egalitarianism is tantamount to idolatry given for example Henry drawing a comparison between Becky and Jezebel.
"This is *before* the fact of this message from God (Amos 4:6-11) pronouncing that their sufferings were from Him because of their sins. Yet God clearly expected that these sufferings should have *already* caused them to turn to Him in repentance. This teaches that we must not say that suffering is inscrutable with respect to discerning that it's cause may be our sin."
DeleteHenry is still confused. These are covenant curses–in fulfillment of the covenant sanctions in the Mosaic Code (Lev 26; Deut 27-28), in case Israel was guilty of national apostasy.
So these are not self-evidently divine punishments. Rather, that interpretation must be supplied by the Mosaic Covenant. Absent that background, they'd be inscrutable.
Keep in mind, too, that these are collective judgments which fall on the righteous and unrighteous alike. The faithful remnant suffered for the sins of the majority.
"We find the same idea in Revelation 9:20-21."
We find the same chronic confusion in Henry's appeal to Rev 9:20-21, which he rips out of context. These natural disasters are introduced back in 8:13, in a worldwide broadcast forewarning evildoers. The "woe" is a stock formula to preface oracles of judgment (e.g. Isa 5:8; 10:1; Jer 13:27; Ezk 24:9; Amos 5:18; 6:1). Likewise, an eagle is, in itself, a harbinger of doom (e.g. Deut 28:49; Jer 4:13; 48:40; Lam 4:19; Ezk 17:3; Hab 1:8).
So these are not self-evidently divine punishments. Rather, that interpretation is supplied by the avian herald. Absent that narrative cue, they'd be inscrutable.
Steve, I'm glad you have understood and engaged my actual argument on those texts.
DeleteYou make some very good points, and I am quite a bit persuaded towards your view.
Referring verses of the kind in Amos 4 back to Lev 26 and Deut 27-28 is right. They had already had divine disclosure. Whether this explanation can cover all instances of these kinds of verses, I'm not certain (i.e. oracles to heathen nations of this kind, if there are any), but the examples I have come across after a little searching of the OT are all directed to Israel.
With regards to your comments about Rev 9:20-21, it is not certain that the Rev 8:13 announcement was heard by those on earth rather than just announced in the heavens. On the other hand, the world already has the book of Revelation in written form so the forewarning of those coming judgments is already in circulation.
Just so people are aware and can follow along if they're interested, several people have been debating Henry in a previous thread. The debate started when Henry said:
ReplyDelete"Considering Rebecca [Groothuis] has been a key player in leading God's people in rebellion with regard to the Bible's teaching on manhood and womanhood, I don't find it hard to believe that God's hand is against her in all this. Awful to read, but this is a terrible warning to those who would lead God's people astray, and the seriousness of tampering with the word of God. God also cast Jezebel on a bed of suffering for false teaching, having given her time to repent but she was unwilling. Tragic."