Over the years I have read a number of prophetic words or warnings of God's judgement & bad things happing to people because they don't repent. Some of these I have felt uncomfortable with in my spirit.
I think there's no doubt that the Lord warns of disasters coming as an encouragement to repent & to prepare us & for us to prepare. My question is- Should the form or nature of these messages change under the New Covenant?
There are countless examples in the OT of prophets pointing out sin & warning that if the people didn't repent, disasters would happen. And this is seen on many occasions, particularly after the law was given. People would be struck with disease or the most common judgement was other nations invading the land & killing people & destroying & plundering crops & possessions. Note that before the law, Abraham, a man of faith, lied about his wife but there was no word of judgement or rebuke or correction. That came to the pagan king.
In the New Testament, I think Jesus makes it clear that in general terms, for groups of people, the degree of people's sin has no bearing on whether bad things will happen to them or not. From my perspective what he seems to be saying is that these circumstances can be seen as general signs to repent.
Luke 13:1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate(A) had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?(B) 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam(C) fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent,(D) you too will all perish.”
There are certainly examples of individuals being warned to repent because bad things would happen, or of judgement coming to individuals. Unless I have missed something, all these examples were before Jesus death & resurrection (John 5:14) or were non-Christians (Acts 5 {I believe Ananias & Sapphira were not believers. I can explain this for anyone interested}, Acts 8:20-24 (may have included negative consequences given Simon's reply), Acts 12:23, Acts 13:8-11)
My view is that Jesus has taken the punishment/judgment of believer’s sins so there is no judgement for believer's now. I know there are scriptures like 1 Peter 4:17 which may seem to indicate this, but 1 Peter 4:17 is in the context of 'participating in the sufferings of Christ' & the sufferings of Christ were not due to his own sin. My view is that if we draw an interpretation from a scripture that Christians are being judged for their sin then this is an incorrect interpretation.
This doesn't mean sinful behaviour does not have consequences. By observation we can see that if a believer embezzles money or commits fornication or adultery, there are consequences eg fear of being caught, potential imprisonment, injured or broken trust, risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases etc. I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important. If believers are being punished for their sins then it detracts from the finished work of Christ.
In terms of the message being proclaimed to groups of non-Christians in the NT, there are many calls to repent & warnings of judgement to come (eg Acts 17:29-31). But in this instance I think it’s clear the judgement to come is referring to ‘judgement day’ rather than bad circumstances happening. Maybe I have missed something but in the preaching of people in Acts, I can’t recall any examples where people were told that bad circumstances/events would happen to them because of their sin or because they didn’t repent. Bad things do happen because of sin, so this is of course true because of the natural consequences of sin which I mentioned above. But should it be the message that we proclaim? I would maintain that we are in the dispensation of grace now, the old covenant of law has passed so we should be proclaiming grace, although including warnings of the final judgement (Rev 20:12) where appropriate.
I think that covers my view on framing messages of warnings of calamities as God’s judgement under the New Covenant which I don’t support. So I think the warnings of disasters & hardships should change under the new covenant.
(Congrats if you’ve got this far through my long post! But it’s not over yet
)
But I do believe the Lord still warns of disasters coming in the New Covenant. An example of this is in Acts 11:27-30. Whilst it isn’t a sudden disaster, it is a bad circumstance that happens over a period of time – drought.
Acts 11:27 During this time some prophets(AK) came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus,(AL) stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.(AM) (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)(AN) 29 The disciples,(AO) as each one was able, decided to provide help(AP) for the brothers and sisters(AQ) living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders(AR) by Barnabas(AS) and Saul.
(Note that there’s no mention of this famine being because of people’s sin or even because they didn’t repent, although this may be the case.)
Agabus’ other recorded message is also about a hardship-
Acts 21:10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus(M) came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says,(N) ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind(O) the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”(P)
12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die(Q) in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”(R) 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up(S) and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”(T)
(Again no mention of judgement or any link to any sins he would have committed, being human like us)
I think 2 out of 2 is an indication that giving warnings of hardships was a theme of Agabus’ prophetic ministry. So I think it is New Covenantly scriptural to have a ministry with this theme. The challenge for him & anyone with this kind of ministry is to maintain a strong foundation of the grace of God & particularly to be living in it.
Note that in both examples he gives a warning of what is coming, but there is no time-frame. The timeframe is only mentioned after-the-fact in hindsight. Many people are critical of those warning of hardships without a time-frame, but this is clearly scriptual. In both cases he delivers the message, but he doesn’t suggest to people how they should respond. In the first instance the people think of other Christians, in particular those from whom they received the message of grace. Their first instinct was to help other Christians. Agabus came down from Jerusalem (Judea) to Antioch to deliver the message & the believers in Antioch sent back a blessing to where he had come from. Perhaps there was an element of thanksgiving for those who had sent or released him to bring the message to them.
I don’t know if I would build a theology from these examples to say that we shouldn’t suggest to people how to respond, but I think it would give more scriptural confidence just to deliver the message.
There’s no mention of opposition to Agabus’ message but the apostle Paul certainly had opposition from “religious” people of his day. He persisted with the message. Some people responded & some didn’t.
I think there's no doubt that the Lord warns of disasters coming as an encouragement to repent & to prepare us & for us to prepare. My question is- Should the form or nature of these messages change under the New Covenant?
There are countless examples in the OT of prophets pointing out sin & warning that if the people didn't repent, disasters would happen. And this is seen on many occasions, particularly after the law was given. People would be struck with disease or the most common judgement was other nations invading the land & killing people & destroying & plundering crops & possessions. Note that before the law, Abraham, a man of faith, lied about his wife but there was no word of judgement or rebuke or correction. That came to the pagan king.
In the New Testament, I think Jesus makes it clear that in general terms, for groups of people, the degree of people's sin has no bearing on whether bad things will happen to them or not. From my perspective what he seems to be saying is that these circumstances can be seen as general signs to repent.
Luke 13:1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate(A) had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?(B) 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam(C) fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent,(D) you too will all perish.”
There are certainly examples of individuals being warned to repent because bad things would happen, or of judgement coming to individuals. Unless I have missed something, all these examples were before Jesus death & resurrection (John 5:14) or were non-Christians (Acts 5 {I believe Ananias & Sapphira were not believers. I can explain this for anyone interested}, Acts 8:20-24 (may have included negative consequences given Simon's reply), Acts 12:23, Acts 13:8-11)
My view is that Jesus has taken the punishment/judgment of believer’s sins so there is no judgement for believer's now. I know there are scriptures like 1 Peter 4:17 which may seem to indicate this, but 1 Peter 4:17 is in the context of 'participating in the sufferings of Christ' & the sufferings of Christ were not due to his own sin. My view is that if we draw an interpretation from a scripture that Christians are being judged for their sin then this is an incorrect interpretation.
This doesn't mean sinful behaviour does not have consequences. By observation we can see that if a believer embezzles money or commits fornication or adultery, there are consequences eg fear of being caught, potential imprisonment, injured or broken trust, risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases etc. I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important. If believers are being punished for their sins then it detracts from the finished work of Christ.
In terms of the message being proclaimed to groups of non-Christians in the NT, there are many calls to repent & warnings of judgement to come (eg Acts 17:29-31). But in this instance I think it’s clear the judgement to come is referring to ‘judgement day’ rather than bad circumstances happening. Maybe I have missed something but in the preaching of people in Acts, I can’t recall any examples where people were told that bad circumstances/events would happen to them because of their sin or because they didn’t repent. Bad things do happen because of sin, so this is of course true because of the natural consequences of sin which I mentioned above. But should it be the message that we proclaim? I would maintain that we are in the dispensation of grace now, the old covenant of law has passed so we should be proclaiming grace, although including warnings of the final judgement (Rev 20:12) where appropriate.
I think that covers my view on framing messages of warnings of calamities as God’s judgement under the New Covenant which I don’t support. So I think the warnings of disasters & hardships should change under the new covenant.
(Congrats if you’ve got this far through my long post! But it’s not over yet
)But I do believe the Lord still warns of disasters coming in the New Covenant. An example of this is in Acts 11:27-30. Whilst it isn’t a sudden disaster, it is a bad circumstance that happens over a period of time – drought.
Acts 11:27 During this time some prophets(AK) came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus,(AL) stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.(AM) (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)(AN) 29 The disciples,(AO) as each one was able, decided to provide help(AP) for the brothers and sisters(AQ) living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders(AR) by Barnabas(AS) and Saul.
(Note that there’s no mention of this famine being because of people’s sin or even because they didn’t repent, although this may be the case.)
Agabus’ other recorded message is also about a hardship-
Acts 21:10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus(M) came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says,(N) ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind(O) the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”(P)
12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die(Q) in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”(R) 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up(S) and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”(T)
(Again no mention of judgement or any link to any sins he would have committed, being human like us)
I think 2 out of 2 is an indication that giving warnings of hardships was a theme of Agabus’ prophetic ministry. So I think it is New Covenantly
scriptural to have a ministry with this theme. The challenge for him & anyone with this kind of ministry is to maintain a strong foundation of the grace of God & particularly to be living in it. Note that in both examples he gives a warning of what is coming, but there is no time-frame. The timeframe is only mentioned after-the-fact in hindsight. Many people are critical of those warning of hardships without a time-frame, but this is clearly scriptual. In both cases he delivers the message, but he doesn’t suggest to people how they should respond. In the first instance the people think of other Christians, in particular those from whom they received the message of grace. Their first instinct was to help other Christians. Agabus came down from Jerusalem (Judea) to Antioch to deliver the message & the believers in Antioch sent back a blessing to where he had come from. Perhaps there was an element of thanksgiving for those who had sent or released him to bring the message to them.
I don’t know if I would build a theology from these examples to say that we shouldn’t suggest to people how to respond, but I think it would give more scriptural confidence just to deliver the message.
There’s no mention of opposition to Agabus’ message but the apostle Paul certainly had opposition from “religious” people of his day. He persisted with the message. Some people responded & some didn’t.
