Is it wrong to rejoice in the triumph of justice, even when it results in the eternal damnation of a soul?
Soon after the announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of United States soldiers, believers flooded the twitterverse with expressions of joy and, strangely, some appeals for restraint in celebration. Their reasoning? I’ll let the following explain. It’s an exchange between a prominent Christian tweep and his followers.
@Leader: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.” (Proverbs 24:17)
@Follower1: @Leader Respectfully, “when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy” Proverbs 11:10
@Leader: @Follower1 One is descriptive (Prov. 11:10); the other is prescriptive (Prov. 24:17).
@Follower2: @Leader Justice served is cause for celebration. You misapply Prov. 24:17.
@Leader: @ Follower2 I’m not saying it shouldn’t have been done. But it is not a cause for rejoicing. Taking of any life is reason for grief
@ Follower3: @Leader: Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, ..do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles. (Proverbs 24:17)/How r we to respond?
@Leader: @ Follower3 How did Jesus respond to his enemies? See the Sermon on the Mount, especially Mt. 5:43-48.
I found the leader’s comments troubling for a couple of reasons. First, he appears to undervalue justice to the point at which his sympathy for a stubbornly unrepentant mass murderer almost turned joy into mourning. It’s almost as if he saw bin Laden as a victim of his own evil rather than a responsible moral agent in control of his own choices. Osama bin Laden is not a victim. He understood that God would see justice done, and—like each of us—he was given a choice in how justice would be accomplished with respect to his own sins. He could allow the Son of God to bear the penalty of his sin, or he could bear the penalty himself. He chose the latter. While we must never rejoice over the eternal torment of a soul, neither should we temper our celebration when good triumphs over evil.
When one of the leader’s followers suggested it was morally permissible to rejoice in the triumph of justice—specifically when an unrepentant evildoer receives recompense for his evil—the leader refuted him, referencing this portion of the Lord’s sermon:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborand hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:43–48)
It should be noted that the entire New Testament must be read in light of Revelation. God is merciful—delaying punishment for the evil we do—and He is just—promising to punish sin. He is a God of kindness and He is a God of wrath. Yet He doesn’t hold those two qualities in tension. His kindness and wrath don’t tug Him in opposite directions. He doesn’t feel any conflict. The Lord’s kindness and wrath exist as two expressions of the same quality: love. To quote Chuck Swindoll’s commentary on Romans:
A God of love must also have the capacity for anger. However, the wrath of God is not the kind of bellowing anger we have come to associate with abusive people. Paul described the Creator’s response to sin using the Greek word orge, which means “upsurging.” When used to describe wrath, it is a passionate expression of outrage against wrongdoing and, in this context, it pictures the passionate righteous anger of God cresting the walls of heaven and spilling over onto earth. And while it is indeed a passionate, upsurging response, it is completely consistent with God’s character, which is also love. His wrath is, without question, fearsome, yet also controlled, deliberate, measured, and utterly just. His wrath is nothing less than a reasonable expression of His righteous character and His unfailing love when confronted with evil. God is love (1 John 4:8), which is why He will not stand idly by while evil consumes His creation.
In the same way both kindness and wrath exist in perfect harmony in God’s nature, so also we find justice and mercy coexisting perfectly in God’s grace. “Grace” is not merely another word for “mercy.” Mercy is but one expression of grace; justice is another. Because God loves people, He hates sin. Because “He will not stand idly by while evil consumes His creation,” justice will eventually prevail. Justice, therefore, is God’s kindness given to victims of unrepentant evildoers. This is grace given to all of creation, withheld only from those who reject it.
The fact is, Jesus delivered His sermon on mercy and forgiveness during His first advent in full knowledge of what He would do upon His return. God has promised that He will eradicate evil from His creation either by Christ’s redeeming blood or through His avenging fire. Even though some–in fact, many–will go to eternal suffering, God will be satisfied. His conscience remains clear because He gave all evildoers–all of us–the opportunity to receive His mercy.
In the end of days, God’s mercy will eventually give way to wrath, which will consume all evil. And the saints will rejoice! (Jer. 51:48; Rev. 12:12; 18:20) Not over the demise of people, but in the triumph of good over evil. The recipients of mercy will not delight in the death of souls, but they will revel in the justice of God.
This is good and right. The Lord loves justice, and so should His people.
May 3, 2011 at 2:51 pm
If I am reading your post correctly, it appears that you are dismissing two very relevant Scripture quotes (Proverbs 24:7 and Matthew 5:43-48) with the statement, “It should be noted that the entire New Testament should be read in light of Revelation.”
Really??
In all of your examples, including the commentary from Chuck Swindoll, the judgment referred to is judgment from God. In Revelations, the wrath of God is poured our on man by who? By God! Is the American military the arm of God? I have serious doubts about that.
In my opinion, the entire Old and New Testament should be read in light of the words of Jesus, not Revelations – unless, of course, you are referring to the words of Jesus in Revelations. Jesus clearly says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Are you saying that this only means love our enemies as long as they are not involved in some form of injustice? Remember, that Jesus was speaking to a people that were persecuted and subjected to one of the cruelest empires in the history of man.
To me, the words of Jesus are clear. It may be a good thing that an evil person has been removed from this world, but we should not rejoice in his death. We should be saddened that sin has claimed another victim. We should grieve those who lost their lives in the raid who may have been innocent. And we should turn our eyes inward to the injustice that happens daily in and by our own country and pray that God will not send his wrath on us before we, as Christians, can reveal His glory through the light of our good works.
May 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Hi, Mike
Let me be clear that my article isn’t debating the issue of a “just war” or if there is such a thing. That’s another discussion.
Also, let me state clearly that I am not dismissing any passage. I make the point that any one passage must be read in light of the whole, which the Twitter leader I quoted–along with a great many others–had failed to do. Taken on their own, and posited improperly as they were, one might conclude from the posts that God doesn’t like justice or that we should be grieved by justice because the consequences are so terrible for the guilty. (More on that in a moment.)
Your statement, “the entire Old and New Testament should be read in light of the words of Jesus, not Revelations [sic],” misses my point on two counts. First, the whole Bible is God’s infallible, inerrant Word; no part of perfect truth can be more or less true than another. Revelation IS the Word of Christ no less than the red letters of the Gospels. There is no canon within the Canon.
Second, in saying the entire NT should be read in light of Revelation, I make the point that all of the Lord’s teachings on grace, mercy, and forgiveness fall from the lips of the One who will return to exact justice. I say that because Christians too often regard justice as a bad thing. (I’m working on another article about this, so bear with me. I will have these thoughts more fully expressed soon.) Believers affirm justice as a concept, but in actual practice, they behave as though wanting justice is unseemly or even sinful. I understand their reticence. In our eagerness to become people of grace, we too often make justice expendable.
I will argue in the later article that justice cannot be primary in a dispute, but neither should it be given lesser status than mercy or forgiveness. There is not only a way to give justice equal standing with mercy and forgiveness when dealing with people, I will show that everyone is better served when justice, mercy, and forgiveness are all given their proper place.
My point in today’s posting might be made better, but in the end, I affirm your upshot: “It may be a good thing that an evil person has been removed from this world, but we should not rejoice in his death.” I would go further, however, to say that we should rejoice in the triumph of justice. Justice is good. It is no less a quality of God’s nature than mercy. So, let’s not be afraid to savor its victory.
I would, however, stop short of saying with you, “We should be saddened that sin has claimed another victim.” It deepens the anguish of victims to hear such things. And we Christians–I, too, have been guilty–unwittingly hurt the victims of sin in our eagerness to be graceful to the guilty. Let’s celebrate justice and let the sympathy victims feel from us not be diminished by expressions of sorrow for their tormentor.
Finally, as you say, “We should grieve those who lost their lives in the raid who may have been innocent. And we should turn our eyes inward to the injustice that happens daily in and by our own country.” AMEN!
May 4, 2011 at 10:02 pm
This is a great discussion!
As part of the dialog shouldn’t we ask ourselves if the actions of our military (don’t get me wrong here, my son is currently serving in the military) and our government are acts of “justice” or “revenge”? Does’t justice look like a trial with an exploration of the “facts” to determine guilt and punishment?
Following any of these paths of argument, how can we presume to call our actions “justice” yet condemn terrorism as wrong? Wasn’t this act simply another form of “might makes right?” I don’t think this falls under the category of “justice” and I am not sure this is the kind of justice Mark is calling us to celebrate. Honestly I struggle to sort it all out.
At this moment all I can work out is this – a very bad man is now dead and can no longer hurt anyone else. That, I think, is a good thing. Was it justice? Perhaps on a grand or even cosmic scale you could say “justice was served” or “he got what was coming to him” and indeed those who live by the sword will surely die by it. Is it an example of God’s justice? I don’t think so. It is much more like revenge than justice. It makes the line between our actions and the actions of terrorists very thin indeed. Would it have made a difference to have captured him instead and brought him to “justice”? Perhaps that would have made him a martyr or a saint, I don’t know. But if we had captured him, brought him to trial, and then condemned him to death, that would be, I think, justice. To assassinate him, to “take him out” does not feel like justice; I can’t connect the dots.
May 9, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Hey, Chris
I suppose a good beginning would be to see justice in terms of context. I see at least four realms in which justice must be examined:
• The personal realm, in which one has been injured or offended by someone
• The civic realm, in which a government acts as an authority to dispense justice on behalf of its citizens
• The political realm, in which one state obtains justice for itself by force
• The cosmic realm, in which God as the supreme authority metes out justice, either temporal or eternal
We have to analyze these separately in order to make sense of Scripture when it discusses the application of justice. Your response appears to mix and match and blend the contexts, leading to confusion. For example, you asked, “Doesn’t justice look like a trial with an exploration of the ‘facts’ to determine guilt and punishment?” The answer is yes if you’re talking about how a civil authority applies its own laws to its own citizens (civic justice). The Lord established earthly authorities (kings and governments) to mete out justice on behalf of individuals, freeing individuals to forgive their oppressors. God expects individuals to behave mercifully toward one another and He charges kings and governments with the responsibility to carry out justice for them.
In this case, however, the justice is neither personal nor civic, but political. The United States acted unilaterally in response to an act of war, both to obtain justice for victims and to protect its citizens from further attack.
You asked, “Wasn’t this act simply another form of ‘might makes right?’” The answer is, simply, “yes.” In fact, ALL justice is a matter of “might makes right.” The entity with the most power makes the rules and then enforces them. Because God is all-powerful, He is the ultimate authority on “right” and “wrong,” and in the end of days, He will see that justice is applied to all wrongdoing. In the meantime, the question facing each earthly authority is whether a lesser power is “just” in the exercise of its might. A ruler or government is “just” in the cosmic sense when it acts in accordance with the will of God. According to Paul in Romans 13, this is the role of government in both the civil and political realms. God uses governments and civic rulers in their civil and political functions—sometimes in spite of themselves—to mete out cosmic justice. All the better if that government recognizes God as its authority and seeks to align itself to His standard.
You also appear to have trouble distinguishing “revenge” from “justice.” They are similar in that they both seek to balance wronging with an appropriate punishment. The difference? Revenge seeks to do this for oneself and rarely concerns itself with balance. Justice, on the other hand, is accomplished by an authority on behalf of someone else. In this case, the United States government sought justice on behalf of its citizens.
I am most concerned, however, with your question, “How can we presume to call our actions ‘justice’ yet condemn terrorism as wrong?” And you follow this with the statement that our government’s attempted capture and subsequent killing of bin Laden “makes the line between our actions and the actions of terrorists very thin indeed.” I realize that you carry a heavy emotional burden over the taking of a human life, but without realizing it, you are wandering down a frightening path. Both the question and the statement appear devoid of any concept of justice altogether, suggesting that targeting an admitted mass-murderer is somehow the same as the random killing of innocent people. That’s the very attitude the mass-murderer carries. Any person who sees those two acts as the same has no concept of justice.
The acts are similar in that they both involve the killing of a human being, but that’s the only similarity they share. While taking a human life is extreme, there are, nevertheless, times in which killing a human is entirely just and right. This is one of them.
May 9, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Mark:
Thanks for the response. I may have not clearly delineated the various types of justice but you did a good job of that and actually made the point I did not make very well. This was an act of political justice not the justice of God you so clearly referenced.
You didnt like me saying that there is a thin line between our actions and the actions of terrorists and yet you can agree that they are both murder. Murder is forbidden in the 10 Commandments and although other Mosaic laws explain situations where murder is excusable (like Jesus explaining that divorce was allowed because of our hard hearts not the plan of God) Jesus makes it clear in the NT that we are no longer under the eye for an eye system.
You most surprise my by suggesting I have no concept of justice. I dont believe it is I but rather you who is travelling down a terrifying path. I agree there is a distinction between taking innocent life versus taking the life of a guilty one. I was only pointing out that some terrorists acts are just that, retaliation (some would even say self defense) against a foe that is presumed guilty of crimes. A superpower bombs a village and innocent lives are taken. The terrorist responds in like manner taking the innocent lives of the enemy as retribution. Terrorists attacked us and we then hunted down the terrorist leader and at times killed innocents in our pursuit. Ghandi said that if we all lived by the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth we would soon be a blind and toothless world.
But it is the values of the kingdom i am referring to not the role of governments. God gave governments to punish evil doers and as such this act was in line with that responsibility. I was objecting to equating that political justice with divine justice. I believe i am not out of line in doing so. You may have misunderstood me. As you say, the taking of a human life is extreme – i think it can be justified and excused but I cannot follow you to the assertion that it is both just and right.
May 10, 2011 at 7:56 am
I’m not so sure I was as clear as I had hoped. When discussing theology, the precise use of terms is crucial. So, let me clarify my position and precisely define my terms while using some of your statements.
While there are at least these four kinds of justice we must consider separately, they are nonetheless related. As I said,
In other words, when a ruler or state acts to carry out civic or political justice, it may or may not be aligned with cosmic justice. To the extent a ruler or state acts as an instrument of God in maintaining justice on earth, it is so aligned. That is the basis of what might be called a “just war.” In this case, I do believe the United States government fulfilled cosmic justice when it obtained political justice.
You wrote, “Yet you can agree that they are both murder.” I most certainly do not agree that Osama bin Laden’s indiscriminant blowing up of innocent people and the strategic military operation to capture or kill him are the same acts called “murder.” Again, we must define our terms. Murder is an act of killing, but not all killing is murder. Murder is forbidden, but killing under some circumstances is justified. For example, when a murderer is executed, ending his life is not murder; it is an act of justice. Another: In 1984, an armed man entered a McDonald’s in San Ysidro and started shooting. He killed 21 people and wounded 19 others until a SWAT sniper killed him.
Execution is not murder. The SWAT sniper’s bullet was not murder. A just war is not murder.
We might debate whether or not U.S. action to capture or kill bin Laden is just, but we must first agree that not all killing is murder.
You wrote, “Jesus makes it clear in the NT that we are no longer under the eye for an eye system.” Actually, I disagree. But it’s a very different subject for another day (i.e. the old Mosaic land covenant with the nation of Israel and how it informs morality.) I served as Andy Stanley’s collaborator on The Grace of God. Knowing your background in fundamentalism–which of course, I share–you may find his book offers a healing perspective on the Old Testament code. You say “eye for an eye” like it’s a bad thing. It is actually a good thing. It doesn’t describe vengeance or revenge, it’s an expression calling for parity when carrying out justice.
In your paragraph beginning, “You most surprise…,” you simply reinforced my point about not having a concept of justice. I know you better than that, Chris. But you again mashed acts of justice together with mass-murder and terrorism without distinguishing them! You correctly show that everyone offers justification for their actions, but you fail to acknowledge that some of them are right in their rationale. In this discussion, you continually throw all acts of killing into the same category, which is to ignore the concept of justice.
At the core of your confusion, I think, is this statement: “It is the values of the kingdom i am referring to not the role of governments.” They are not necessarily different things. The God who uses governments as His instruments is not a different God who will personally rule over His kingdom. We are living in a transitional time, existing in an “already-not yet” tension before the return of Christ and the full establishment of His kingdom. In the meantime, the role of governments (when acting as God’s instruments of justice) is not separate from God’s kingdom values. He is the same God now as He will be then.
You appear to suggest that God’s coming kingdom will not have a system of punishment for crimes. During the millennial phase of His kingdom on earth (which will include unregenerate people), crime and punishment will have “eye for an eye” parity. Murder will be punished with death.
You also appear to believe this very distinct, very unusual “age of grace” in which we live is God’s normal way of dealing with humanity. It is, in fact, a very unusual period in human history. For now, God uses governments to maintain a modicum of justice for the sake of order, just to give all humanity time to respond to the gospel. He is withholding the greater portion of justice for a time, but that is not His usual M.O.
If I may get personal with you, I think your fundamentalist background may have brutalized your view of justice. Their concept of justice is anything but just. Or even godly, for that matter. The wrath of God was never balanced for you. And there is an undertone of resentment for the Old Testament code lacing your comments. Perhaps it is better discussed over lunch.
Suffice it to say, I believe the taking of this particular human life was both just and right. While the U.S. government acted in the interest of political justice, I believe they were God’s instrument of cosmic justice, at least in the temporal realm.
May 10, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I would agree ti the high probability that fundamentalism has skewed my understanding of justice. And i accept your lunch offer to discuss it!
Always ur friend ready to discuss the hard stuff,
Chris