Does God still inflict national or generational judgment

[Paidion]

We both know what came on them in 70 A.D. Who do I think sent it? The Romans sent it.
After making His prediction, Jesus further predicted, "Truly, I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation." I don't read that He said, "Truly, I tell you, that God will send all these things upon this generation."

Do you also think, as many do, that this "punishment" of the Jews in 70 A.D. to the extent that some of them killed and ate their children out of starvation, was insufficient. Thus God had to punish the Jews further in the first half of the twentieth century by raising up Hitler to cause unspeakable tortures and starvation upon 6 million of them?
Hundreds of people think exactly that! Were the Jews any worse sinners than the rest of the world that they needed to suffer in a way and to a degree that no other people ever did? And worse — God did it to them!

[jeffreyclong]

Paidon.. you made my point.. which is that given (which you don't) that national calamities were sometimes (not all) interpreted by prophets as judgment by God.. who could we trust today. If the slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany were God's judgment, then people could think they could just proclaim it (without authority) as some do. Instead of "civilians" we would need a trusted prophet to listen to. Though in the case of Jeremiah, he was a man of God, but he wasn't listened to.

To those on the board who _do_ believe that God worked in this way in the past.. is there biblically any indication that he continues to do so? Jesus' statements about the temple occurred in that generation. And the prophecies regarding Rome occurred within the biblical times. Does He continue to do this post-new testament? And if so, how might we know? What would be the qualifications of a prophet.

As an aside.. the one guy I would have trusted with this was David Wilkerson.

[Paidion]

As an aside.. the one guy I would have trusted with this was David Wilkerson.

You would have trusted Dave Wilkerson with regard to prophecy about future things?

I had a great deal of respect for Dave Wilkerson — how he continued to witness to Nicky Cruz right while Nicky was threatening to kill him, and how Nicky finally came to the Lord through David's witness. (I heard Nicky in person proclaim the gospel, and hundreds who attended the meeting came forward to surrender themselves to Christ).

Perhaps the greatest achievements of Dave Wilkerson was founding Teen Challenge, and organization which has helped thousands of people (not only teens) to overcome their addictions.

However, a number of Dave's prophecies about future things have not happened as prophesied.
A few examples:

1. 1000 fires simultaneously in New York City by 1993.
2. The end of Gospel Television by 1999.
3. A financial crash in 2000.

However, I don't hold these "failures" against Dave. They aren't actually failures. For, logically, the future cannot be known in advance.

[Homer]

Paidion,

Your erroneous ideas about Universalism and the judgements attributed to God in the scriptures all spring from one source: your one diminsional view of God wherein you assume His total character is expressed in the statement :"God is love". You are forced to play down or ignore other statements about God such as:

Deuteronomy 4:24
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (affirmed in Hebrews 12:29)

You deny that God takes revenge in spite of the plain statement in scripture that He does. You deny His judgements which, again, the scriptures plainly affirm.

Unless you are a Deist, you should recognize that nothing happens apart from God's will, at least in the permissive sense. Jesus said:

Matthew 10:29
New King James Version (NKJV)

29. Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

And Job attibuted his woeful condition to God, and was not mistaken in doing so:

Job 1:20-22
New King James Version (NKJV)

20. Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21. And he said:

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
And naked shall I return there.
The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away;
Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

22. In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong.

God was responsible for Job's condition, even though the calamities were the direct result of Satan's actions. God took down the "hedge" of protection. And God, who superintends all creation, is responsible for judgements on mankind that He does not directly carry out because He permits them to happen when He could have prevented them. Abraham Lincoln wisely recognized this:

(From Lincoln's famed Second Inaugural Address to Congress, about a month before his murder)

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease when, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.

It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged.

The prayer of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.”

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern there any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, “The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

We can not know why the Holocaust occured. But God could have prevented it had He chosen to do so. He did not need to "predict" what would happen nor was He taken by surprise. And He was not powerless to stop it.

When you start with the assumption that "God is love", nothing more or less, then you are forced into all kinds of errors. Plain statements of scriptures denied. God's prophets wrong in attributing responsibility to Him. The scriptures are wrong. God's threats and warnings explained away. You even invent your own translation of words to support your ideas.

It is not difficult to recognize that your ideas about God's judgements, both past and threatened future, all spring from the same cause. They are all of a piece.

[steve]

We both know what came on them in 70 A.D. Who do I think sent it?

According to Jesus (Matt.22:7) the one who sent it was the same King whose Son had been insulted by them. I think Jesus knew well enough what is and is not consistent with the character of God.

Likewise, John the Baptist (whom Jesus eulogized as the greatest of all prophets) said that it was Jesus (or God) whose fan was in his hand, and whose ax was at the root of the fruitless trees (Matt.3:10-12), and who would soon cast both the chaff and the fruitless trees into unquenchable fire (a not-so-veiled reference to AD70).

There can be no question, biblically, that Jesus and John (like all the prophets before them) saw God as the one exacting judgment against sinful nations, including Israel. No biblical authority (only sentimentality) can be appealed to in order to establish a contrary claim.

[jeffreyclong]

@steve.

Thanks for chiming in.

Do you think God still does this? How would we know which event to interpret as God's judgment? Are there still prophets? Paidon pointed out that David Wilkerson had failed prophecies, and I believe that inerrancy is a qualification.

[Paidion]

According to Jesus (Matt.22:7) the one who sent it was the same King whose Son had been insulted by them. I think Jesus knew well enough what is and is not consistent with the character of God.

Yes, Jesus certainly knew what is and is not consistent with the character of God. He Himself, the Son of God, Another exactly like His Father (“He who has seen me has seen the Father”, and bearing the very stamp of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3) demonstrated the character of the Father throughout His time here on earth. Anyone who knew Jesus could never have imagined Him causing great suffering to His enemies, but rather taught His disciples to love their enemies and do good to them.

Jesus said some very strong words to the Pharisees who hated Him, and called them names, “You generation of snakes!” etc. But He would never have locked them up in a prison without food or water until they died. Are you aware of even one incident in which Jesus caused another person to suffer excruciating pain?

Matthew 22:1-14 is a parable which Jesus addressed to the Pharisees, and it represented God's dealing with them. However, I don't think it's about the atrocities committed against Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If so, who was the man who got in without a wedding garment who was cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Please don't misunderstand me. When I say God is LOVE, I do not have in mind the so-called wishy-washy “love” which accepts everyone whether they are saints or rebels. For God is interested in correcting the character of everyone, and sometimes uses very strong measures to do so. But what God does NOT do is to exercise punitive measures for no reason other than to cause useless pain. Rather He carries out His own good measures to bring about repentance, including kindness (Rom 2:4), but also the administration of pain when necessary, even as a good human father would do. But no good earthly father would lock his child in a room until he died of thirst or starvation. Surely we cannot expect less from the loving heavenly Father.

Also as you know Jesus used hyperbole to bring across a point. I once expressed that the tribulation of which Jesus spoke could not have occurred in 70 A.D. Because He said: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” Then you replied that this was hyperbole —that similar words were used in the OT for events which occurred long ago. So is it not plausible that Matthew 22:7 is hyperbole, especially since it is part of a parable?

Likewise, John the Baptist (whom Jesus eulogized as the greatest of all prophets) said that it was Jesus (or God) whose fan was in his hand, and whose ax was at the root of the fruitless trees (Matt.3:10-12), and who would soon cast both the chaff and the fruitless trees into unquenchable fire (a not-so-veiled reference to AD70).

If the reference to 70 A.D. Is not-so-veiled, then why don't the commentators agree that 70 A.D. is the reference? Indeed, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write that "language so personal and individual" as John's words as recorded in this passage can "scarcely be understood" to apply to "any national judgment like the approaching destruction of Jerusalem."

The writers of “electic notes” also indicate that the tree represents the individual.

Barnes says that it's all about the kingdom of justice that's about to be set up.

John Gill's interpretation is that the covenant with the nation of Israel is about to be removed, including the root of their privileges, civil and ecclesiastical.

There can be no question, biblically, that Jesus and John (like all the prophets before them) saw God as the one exacting judgment against sinful nations, including Israel.

Not all see this as such a certainty. And what about our own day? How do we know today which disasters are God's vengeance against a nation, which are natural disasters, and which are disasters which God had no part in, but were caused by wicked people? I know that for some, it's no problem. They lay the blame on God for them ALL.

No biblical authority (only sentimentality) can be appealed to in order to establish a contrary claim.

No appeal to the life or teaching of Christ can establish the given claim.

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

It is hard for me to get a handle on what portions of scripture you accept, and which portions you reserve the right to overrule by your own intuitions.

Do you also dispute the inspiration of the Book of Revelation (as you seem to dispute that of Moses, David and the prophets) and the horrible judgments which are referred to there as "the wrath of the Lamb"? Who is this "Lamb" whose wrath is so prominent a theme throughout that book?

The judgment of which John spoke was immanent. He said the ax was already at the root of the trees (not some distant event) and God was about to cut down every fruitless tree and cast it into the fire (he said the same about the "fan" being in His hand). I agree that the trees (like the chaff) represent individual Israelites, which is why the prediction differentiates between "every tree that does not bring forth fruit" (i.e., the apostates) and the other trees not mentioned because they would not be cut down, represent (like the grain) the faithful remnant. If John was not talking about the national judgment in AD70 which was one of the main themes of Jesus' ministry, what immanent disaster was it to which he was referring when he spoke of the "wrath to come"?

Whose wrath (if not God's) is it that Paul says is "revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness" (Rom.1:18)? Paul calls it "the wrath of God." If you wish to say Paul, too, like all the other Bible authors, were mistaken on this point, we are being asked to assume that you understand the ways of God better than did the inspired prophets and chosen apostles. Can you give reasons for us to elevate you and your opinions above theirs?

I don't have time to go over the parable of the wedding feast with you in detail. But, on your own view, who was the man lacking a wedding garment, and what event was referred to as the King sending out His armies to burn down the city of those who insulted His Son?

It is not consistent glibly to say, "I don't believe this scripture, or that scripture," because "the writers of scripture knew less than I know about what God is like," and then to use scripture to make whatever point you wish to believe. Can you tell us where you stand on such matters as the inspiration of the prophets or the competence and authority of the apostles?

[jeffreyclong]

I don't have a horse in this race.. obviously this is a long-standing feud that I set off. My one input..

There is a lot to be said for a god who is bigger than my understanding. It reminds me of the old saw, "God is God and I'm not." We shouldn't be surprised if the 66 books of the Bible are complicated in their dealings with the things God did through His people because they aren't exhaustive. The books of the Bible cannot contain all that can be known of God, because an infinite deity cannot be captured in such a small tome. As John wrote, the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written if every one of the things Jesus did were written down. And the expression of God through Him was limited by His humanity and limited time on the earth. An overarching hermeneutic that tries to explain all of the contradictions through one lens is going to break under the weight of its own premise. What the Bible teaches is adequate. But it is not exhaustive. And so we need to maintain a healthy respect for the mystery of a god who is bigger than our understanding.

Hans Denck, a 15th century Anabaptist writer published a piece called "Paradoxa" in which he sought to demonstrate contradictions in the Bible. His intent was not to disprove the inerrancy of scripture. It was to teach humility to its expositors. His principle was that quotations taken out of their context without any explanation whatever, suggest a rather superficial treatment of Scripture.

If you'd like to read Paradoxa, I have it posted on my old website at

http://www.jeffreyclong.com/2006/01/06/ ... scripture/

The formatting is very poor. I need to go in and edit so that it can be seen more plainly the verses he was comparing to each other.

[Paidion]

When you start with the assumption that "God is love"...

Well, that assumption is close to my starting point, but not quite there.

My starting point is Jesus the Logos (expression) of God, the Messiah, the Son of God, His teachings, His life and example, His revelation of the Father.

Don't you believe that God is LOVE (I John 4:8, 4:16) and that in Him is no darkness at all (I John 1:5)?

By the way, what's the problem with believing that God is LOVE? Do you believe He is sometimes unloving? That a certain degree of darkness sometimes springs forth from Him?