Does God still inflict national or generational judgment

[steve]

So it seems that Jesus didn't think that God punished those Galileans by using Pilate to kill them; nor did He think God punished those 18 people by causing the tower in Siloam to fall on them!

I don't get that message from Jesus' words at all. I hear Him saying, "You are all in danger of suffering the same fate as these people, unless you repent." What fate? Being slaughtered by Roman troops and being killed by toppling towers in Jerusalem (That is the meaning of "likewise" in "You shall all likewise perish"). Those mentioned by Jesus on this occasion were simply ahead of the rest of the population in experiencing these things. They were not worse sinners (more deserving of judgment) than the rest of the nation—just about the same as the rest. All were courting similar disaster.

[morbo3000]

However, the difficulty with the idea of God causing the Jews in 70 A.D. to suffer thirst and lack of food until they die or ate their children, or causing the terrible atrocities done to the Jews by the Nazis, or causing tsunamis, and earthquakes to punish people is two fold:

1. It assumes God's justice is retributive rather than reformative and restitutive. "You did evil; you must pay!" It assumes God's punishment is penal.

2. It suggests that God's punishment is selective. Why did He, or does He punish some people groups around the world and not others? Are the groups which He punishes more evil than those whom He doesn't? Are people who are seriously ill being punished by God? It seems to me that many who are the most evil in the world, are among those who do not suffer at all, and who have many possessions, political power, and almost anything their heart desires. Why are they exempt from God's punishment? Job pointed this out to his "comforters" many hundreds of years ago. Or are they "storing up wrath" for a later date? Even if that is the case, it doesn't explain why some evil people are "getting off scott free" in this life. Why are little girls being raped and tortured to death? Is God punishing their parents? Or is He punishing the little girls themselves?

Actually Paidon, this touches on my question. A little context:

(oh.. this is jeffreyclong. I changed my user name so that I could post with liberty and not worry that something would come back to haunt me if an employer Google'd me.)

I am a Mennonite. Mennonite's have to wrestle with this problem because we believe, as do others, that to imitate Jesus is to turn the other cheek and to not take up the sword. If any theologians would be stuck trying to deal with the issue of God's love and retribution, with Jesus' teaching and the wrath of God in the Old Testament, it would be the Mennonites. Not to get side-tracked, but this is a problem with the atonement as well. A judicial atonement means that God's wrath for mankind could only be satisfied through the sacrificial death of an unspotted lamb.

Our hermeneutic might be summarized as "it's complicated." It's reconciled by saying that God worked differently in the Old Testament through the nation of Israel then he did following Jesus' ministry.

While you are very certain of your hermeneutic, I think that working through these problems is not as simple as you make it. As I've said.. theologians who very much emphasize the love of Jesus and our call to follow him nonviolently have to admit that the Old Testament causes a lot of problems.

Which leads back to my question. Could it be that Jesus and the New Testament authors were the last prophets who could interpret or warn of national judgment? That being the case, we would have to say that either God isn't judging nations since the New Testamental times, or that if He was, we couldn't know.

[brody196]

If we concede that the gift of prophecy still exist, then it seems to logically follow that someone could warn of such things(National/Generational judgement).

[morbo3000]

@brody That's a great point. I was playing the other end of interpreting the calamity. I forgot that the role of a prophet was to warn and call people to repentance.

[brody196]

@brody That's a great point. I was playing the other end of interpreting the calamity. I forgot that the role of a prophet was to warn and call people to repentance.

A lot of this debate hinges on ones view of the canon and whether or not folks still can receive new revelations apart from the written word. Most of your Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Etc.. hold a view that men can no longer receive anything new from God that isn't written in the completed canon of scripture.

[Paidion]

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.

I strongly affirm that I am not doing that, Steve. But considering your view on the Bible which you express in your personal statement of faith, and from which it may be inferred that you believe the plenary and exclusive inspiration of the Bible, I can understand why it may seem to you that I do that very thing, picking and choosing which passages I accept based on my beliefs which I elevate above the Biblical passages which contradict them. Actually, the early Christians picked and chose, too, but not on this basis — rather on the basis of whether or not Christian writings were apostolic.

Can you tell us where you stand on such matters as the inspiration of the prophets or the competence and authority of the apostles?

I've taken long enough to answer this, and you and the other contributors to the forum deserve an answer considering what I have posted from time to time. You will find the essential (but not comprehensive) explanation of my position in the following thread:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4075