Charles Spurgeon on Psalm 94.20 and Unjust Laws

Charles Spurgeon on Psalm 94.20 (The Treasury of David)

Psalm 94.20 

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?"

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" Such thrones there are, and they plead a right divine, but their claim is groundless, a fraud upon mankind and a blasphemy of heaven. God enters into no alliance with unjust authority, he gives no sanction to unrighteous legislation. "Which frameth mischief by a law?" They legalise robbery and violence, and then plead that it is the law of the land; and so indeed it may be, but it is a wickedness for all that. With great care men prepare enactments intended to put down all protests, so as to render wrong-doing a permanent institution, but one element is necessary to true conservatism, viz., righteousness; and lacking that, all their arrangements of the holders of power must come to an end, and all their decrees must in process of time be wiped out of the statute-book. Nothing can last for ever but impartial right. No injustice can be permanent, for God will not set his seal upon it, nor have any fellowship with it, and therefore down it must come, and happy shall be the day which sees it fall.

Amos 1.3-2.3: God's Judgment on Nations

Amos 1.3-2.3: God’s Judgment on Nations

 

In Amos 1.3-2.3 there is a list of judgment oracles against six different nations: Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab.  It is instructive to examine this sequence of judgment oracles for its theology of God’s judgment.  

 

Who, What, and Why of Judgment

 

Who is this judge of the nations?  Yahweh is the sovereign Lord over all nations. He is not a tribal deity but, rather, the world’s universal Lord.  This speaks to the issue that there is one truth which contravenes the modern tendency to relativism.  Also, this great God is the supreme moral agent and authority.  He holds nations to a moral standard. We can gain insight into what concerns the Lord by seeing what these nations are judged for in this text.

 

What is the judgment?  This judgment in on all nations; even non-covenantal nations.  God deals with nation-states as corporate entities. The judgment is brought after periods of patience.  Each of the judgment oracles contains the following refrain: “For three transgressions of __________ and for for four…”

 

“What the device seems to be saying is that each neighbour has rebelled enough and more than enough to warrant the Lord’s drastic intervention in its history; therefore, he is entirely justified in bringing calamity upon them.”[1]

 

Why are the nations judged?  Here are some of the details:

 

            Damascus: “because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron”

 

            Gaza: “because they deported an entire population  to deliver it up to Edom”

 

Tyre: “because they delivered up an entire population to Edom and did not remember the covenant of brotherhood”

 

Edom: “because he pursued his brother with sword, while he stifled his compassion; his anger also tore continually, and he maintained his fury forever”

 

Ammon: “because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge

                 their borders”

 

Moab: “because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime”

 

M. Daniel Carroll R. summarizes the transgressions as an “irrational blood lust in war.”[2]  J. A. Moyter more fully describes the national transgressions:

 

“The spotlight falls not on what they may or may not have done or held in relation to God, but on what they have done man to man: barbarity (1:3) in the course of Hazael’s military campaigns half a century earlier; pitiless slave-trading involving total populations (verse 6b), promise breaking (verse 9), unnatural and persistent hatred (verse 11), and finally sickening atrocities against the helpless (verse 13) and the dead (2:1).” [3]

 

 

These national sins bring forth the judgment of God who rules over the nations with a sovereign moral authority.  Of particular interest is the fact that some of the nations listed here in Amos are threatened with judgment, not because of their behavior toward God’s people, but, rather, for how they treat other non-covenanted nations. Walter Brueggemann insightfully brings out this point:

 

“What astonishes us and warrants our attention is that on occasion the affront against Yahweh is not a direct mocking of Yahweh or an abuse of Israel, but abuse of a third people that has nothing to do with Israel but, as it turns out, has everything to do with Yahweh.

 

For three transgressions of the Ammonites, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they ripped open pregnant women in Gilead in order to enlarge their territory…

For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom.  (Amos 1:13, 2:1)

 

“This rhetoric permits Israel to enunciate the claim that under the aegis of Yahweh’s sovereignty, there is a kind of international law or code of human standards that seems to anticipate the Helsinki Accords of 1975 in a rough way, a code that requires every nation to act in civility and humaneness toward others.  Any affront of this standard is taken to be an act of autonomy, arrogance, and self-sufficiency, which flies in the face of Yahweh’s governance.  Thus Yahweh is the guarantor, not only of Israel, but of the nations in their treatment of each other.”[4]

 

 

Contemporary Significance

 

The living God is still sovereign over nations.  He still renders judgments in history over peoples who transgress with impunity.  This message needs to be broadcast to the nations.  For those who continue to in their destructive forms of injustice there will be a reckoning.  

 

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns; indeed

the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;

he will judge the peoples with equity… for he is coming,

for he is coming to judge the earth.  He will judge the world

in righteousness and the peoples in his faithfulness.

Psalm 96.10, 13

---

     [1]D. A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1989), 129.

      [2]M. Daniel Carroll R. “Visions of Horror, Visions of Hope: An Orientation for Urban Ministry from the Book of Amos” Ex Auditu29 (2013), 7.

     [3]J. A. Moyter, The Message of Amos(Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 1972), 37-38.

     [4]Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy(Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1997), 503.

Nahum: Good Theology from a Book of God's Judgment

In a recent post--Nahum: The Word of God or the Imagination of Man?--I looked at an essay which, in the final analysis, denigrates the vision of God contained in the book of Nahum.  Another essay by Aron Pinker--Nahum's Theological Perspectives Jewish Bible Quarterly 32 (2004), 148-157--provides a good counter-point as he accurately unfolds the deep theology of Nahum.

Pinker begins by stating the purpose of his paper:

The purpose of this paper is to show that Nahum's small book contains an unusually rich theological perspective, and a prophetic message of eternal validity, which is in line with the best prophetic traditions. (p. 149)

Pinker lists out and briefly explains sixteen "specific beliefs that can be discerned in the Book of Nahum."  I will list out these sixteen statement and add a few extra quotations from Pinker for some of them.

1.  God demands universal adherence to His moral code.

God's jealousy presupposes an accepted moral fabric.  It is the basis for man's hope that a just cause would be recognized.  Moreover, God's jealousy implies the existence of a purpose.  The achievement of this purpose involves His chosen people.  Those who pose a threat to His people become His enemies, because they obstruct the attainment of His purpose.

2.  God punishes transgressions.

An avenging God gives hope and comfort that justice will be done.

3.  God is "temperamentally" involved.

God possesses anger (1:2), which is a consequence of the discrepancy between the reality of the human condition and God's expectation from man.  God is not apathetic, nor is He distanced and uninterested.  Being in possession of anger means that He is involved, interested, and near to man and historical events.

4.  Trangressors of God's moral code are His enemies.

5.  God bears a grudge.

God's bearing a grudge guarantees that every act has to be accounted for.

6.  God is slow to anger.

Time allowed for the sinner to reform is usually also an extension of the suffering of the righteous... How the Lord harmonizes between "being slow to anger" and "timely justice" is not altogether clear... While Nahum describes a "furious" and "avenging" God, it is clear that this is a state reached only after all the "patience" has been exhausted.

7.  God is great in power.

8.  God does not remit all punishment.

9.  God's majesty is exhibited in nature's reaction to His appearance.

His appearance causes a cataclysm of nature, indicating His supremacy over the forces of nature and His ability to reverse long-standing features (1:4-6).  This is the basis for his argument that God can undo the Assyrian Empire, a lasting phenomenon of might and subjugation.

10.  God is good.

11. Belief in God is a source of strength in time of duress.

12.  Deliverance as a consequence of the other's punishment.

13.  God's verdict can not countervailed.

14.  There is a moral code by which God judges nations.

15.  God is in charge.

16.  Restoration of the special relationship with God

When the messenger brings the tidings of peace (2:1), Nahum urges Judah joyfully to celebrate its feasts and fulfill its vows.  The directive implies a new start without any resentments or recriminations.  Such "new beginnings" are possible with the Lord.

After listing and discussing these sixteen beliefs Pinker has these apt words:

Nahum's book appears to be imbued with a strong sense of God's sovereignty and clearly portrays His lordship over history.  This serves as the principal element of Nahum's comforting message, transcending the specific historical situation that was the cause for its announcement.  Nahum's eternal message is one of hope, which gives comfort to anyone oppressed by seemingly invulnerable tyranny.  He clearly presents the normative theological position held by the biblical prophets: The Lord is powerful, applies His power to counter evil and protect the righteous.  There is nothing shallow in Nahum's theological perspectives.  His theocentric view of history would not have permitted a position of an opportunistic national propagandist.  For it was clear to him that Judah's salvation is not one that it deserves but rather is a consequence of Assyria's fall.  Nahum rejoices, firstly, because the sanctuary will be cleansed and sacrifices brought (2:1), enabling a recovery of religious norms.  (p. 155)

This is a good and proper perspective on the book of Nahum.  May we listen afresh to God's word--yes, even Nahum--with faith, humility, and worship.

Nahum: The Word of God or the Imagination of Man?

Approaching Scripture as the word of God--the way Jesus did--has consequences for what kind of conclusions one will come to when seeking to understand the text.  Conversely, viewing the text as simply the word of man--generated and driven by man's religious impulses--will also have consequences.

The book of Nahum is a good test case in this regard.  Nahum presents us with a vision of God as avenging Judge who prophesies the coming destruction of Nineveh in graphic terms.  There are those who think Nahum's vision of God's retributive justice is unbecoming and unworthy of the God of love displayed elsewhere in Scripture.  A good example of this view of Nahum as reflecting merely human religiousity is David G. Garber, Jr. and his essay "Facing Traumatizing Texts: Reading Nahum's Nationalistic Rage" Review and Expositor 105 (Spring, 2008), 285-294.  

Throughout his essay Garber repeatedly uses inflammatory rhetoric to describe the book of Nahum.  He calls it a "fantasy of vengenace," "a diatribe and vengeance fantasy," and "a vitriolic vengeance fantasy" (pp. 286, 287, 290).  Occasionally Garber does state an insightful truth, such as when he writes:

The awesome terror of God's avenging power is both frightening and reassuring to the oppressed.  It is frightening, because it is a reminder that Yahweh is a God with whom one cannot trifle, but it is also reassuring, because it affirms that the oppressor will not have the last word. (p. 288)

This is a genuine biblical perspective but it is ultimately drowned out by Garber's perspective elsewhere in the article.  For example, Garber states:

In Nahum, shalom (peace or wholeness) for the Judean will only result from the realization of violent vengeance.  The pronouncement of "good news" serves as an introduction to a vitriolic vengeance fantasy as the prophet imagines the city of Nineveh suffering military defeat from the hands of YHWH. (pp. 289-290)

Aside from the rhetoric of "a vitriolic vengeance fantasy" already noted, the key phrase in this quotation is--"as the prophet imagines."  The operating assumption here is that the destructive imagery of the book is a result of Nahum's imagination.  It is not seen to be a divine revelation given from Yahweh to Nahum that reveals the truth about God himself.

This is not simply a "slip of the pen" for it is the perspective Garber continues to push in the concluding section of the essay.  Garber begins his conclusion with these words:

The book of Nahum reminds us of the deeply ingrained human longing for vengeance. (p. 291)

The question must be asked: Is it only "the deeply ingrained human longing for vengeance" or is it not also a manifestation and revelation of God's holy and jealousy character?  Later Garber writes:

Perhaps the vitriolic rhetoric in the book of Nahum, and in the collective, xenophobic response of some to the terrorist attacks on September 11, could best be explained as attempts to reassert corporate life in the face of tragedies that force humanity to face the inevitability of its own mortality. (p. 291)

Again, there is nothing here about God revealing his character.  The rhetoric of the book is simply a human attempt to come to grips with national tragedy.  Garber goes further.  He moves to a place where we are called upon to reject the vision of God as vengeful.  Here is Garber in his own words:

Finally, one must wrestle with the image of God presented in the text.  A jealous, powerful, and violent deity is not one to whom many Christians wish to cling.  Christians are much more comfortable with the God who is slow to anger than the God who avenges.  We would much rather read of God's mercy exhibited to the foreigners in Jonah 3 and 4, than God's wrath executed on the Assyrian King in Nahum 2 and 3.  

Up to this point in this quotation it is merely descriptive but the next sentences of Garber move to a prescriptive perspective...

This, I think, is certainly appropriate.  But while we remain steadfast against this image of a violent and wrathful deity, we must also recognize the reason such fantasies exist in the first place. (pp. 292-293--bold-face added)

Here Garber pits himself against the God of Nahum.  This God of vengeance is not worthy of Garber's worship and adoration; he is someone to be opposed.  The book of Nahum is not, therefore, the revelation of God's holy character.  Rather, Nahum is only the expression of man's attempts to deal with pain.  Garber is clear about this when he writes, "Rather, we must continue to read the text and respect the representation of pain that it expresses." (p. 293)

For Garber, the book of Nahum is man's best attempt to deal with pain and crisis.  Garber doesn't like the God of Nahum and urges that the portrait of God as wrathful be opposed.  This is Garber's opinion.  There is only one problem--this is the not the view of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5.17-18)!  Jesus never treated the Scriptures like Garber treats them.  As a follower of Christ ... well, I'm going to follow Christ's viewpoint.