Nahum 1:9-13 (Part 1)

What do you plot against the LORD? He will make a complete end; trouble will not rise up a second time. For they are like entangled thorns, like drunkards as they drink; they are consumed like stubble fully dried. From you came one who plotted evil against the LORD, a worthless counselor.

Thus says the LORD, “Though they are at full strength and many, they will be cut down and pass away. Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more. And now I will break his yoke from off you and will burst your bonds apart.” (Nahum 1:9-13 ESV)

 

1:9-11 In the primary meaning of this passage (in its application to Nineveh), via Judah, God is proclaiming the destruction of the great city. Nothing they do will prevail against God. They have this one consolation though, if it can be called that, they won’t experience this twice. This is because God will so fully destroy them that they will not be able to muster another rising. All that they do will be confusion – like tangled thorns or the steps of a drunk.

Verse 11 speaks of a “wicked counselor.” It is most likely that this person is the current King of the Assyrian Empire. Since there is about a 50 year range within which this prophecy could have been given, we cannot say with 100% accuracy which one of the kings this would have been. However, what we know from ancient history is that any one of the Assyrian Kings could easily have fit this bill.

Here again we see the biblical principle of covenant solidarity. Think back to Israel’s Exodus from Egypt (which we are intended to do since this passage has so many ‘exodus’ motifs). All 10 of the plagues, including the last one which killed every firstborn male child in all of Egypt, were poured out upon the entire country, man and beast, because of their covenant solidarity with their Pharaoh. Think back even farther to the fall. All of mankind was involved in Adam’s violation of the covenant of works. The transgression of Adam cast all his posterity into the state of sin and misery known as Original Sin. God created Adam as the federal head, that is, the representative of all of mankind. When he acted in his probationary period in the Garden of Eden, he was acting as a covenant representative of all of his future offspring. In similar fashion, all those whom God has appointed to eternal life, those whom he chose in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, they are counted in Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to all his posterity, the perfect righteousness of Jesus is imputed to all those who are in Him. This concept of covenant solidarity runs through the Scriptures, in both the Old and New Testaments. This is an unusual concept for us since our society and general philosophy places so much emphasis on the individual and the individual’s responsibility before God. It seems very counterintuitive to us that the actions of one individual should reflect guilt or innocence upon anyone else. But both facts are true: God does judge the individual; but God also judges on a corporate level as well. So in this passage, we have the wicked counselor, no doubt the King, being personally responsible for his individual sin. But because he is the corporate head, representative head, of his nation they are punished along with him.

 

Not to harp on this point too much, but throughout Scripture we see God’s people displaying both a clear understanding of this principle, and a submissive acceptance of it. One thinks of Daniel. The very fact that Daniel and countless other Jews ended up in Babylon was due to this fact of covenant solidarity. The Babylonian Exile was God’s chastisement of His people for their covenant-breaking. Daniel, like many other righteous Jews, had been faithful to God’s covenant and was not personally guilty of the sins which brought this discipline upon their nation. When Daniel read the prophecy of Jeremiah and saw that the foretold 70 years was nearly up, he began to pray earnestly for the fulfillment of God’s promise. Just as an aside, this reminds me of our children’s catechism where the question is asked: What is prayer? The answer to which is: Prayer is asking God for things He has promised to give. Now, as Daniel prays, he prays in the person of the entire guilty nation of Israel. He repents for their corporate sins and he acts as if he is personally guilty of the sins the rest of the country has committed. There is no listing of any exculpatory facts which would exonerate Daniel from personal guilt in the sin of his nation. He understands very well that God deals with His people by covenant, so that if the larger majority of the covenant people are guilty of covenant breaking, the innocent, righteous and faithful saints may very well have to suffer through the corporate fate of the entire nation. (Daniel 9)

We can also cite examples from more recent history. I’m sure we’re all aware that many faithful Christians have suffered along with their compatriots during times of war, drought, famine or economic distress. If God continues to punish our country by casting us into a huge economic tailspin causing widespread unemployment and poverty, it would be very unwise for us to assume that because we are Christians we would somehow be immune to the effects of such conditions.

 

1:12-13 here God consoles his people who have been abused by Nineveh. Now we learn an important lesson here: God identifies very personally with His covenant people. In verse 11 the wicked counselor is said to plot evil against Lord. And here God is assuring His people of their deliverance. Part of Nineveh’s plotting against the Lord was its plotting against His people. There is a sense in which Israel, in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament should seem insignificant in the world. Yet God’s people have always been at the center of controversy or turmoil. The heathen resent the idea of a people chosen by God.

 It is very likely that the King of Nineveh was completely oblivious to the existence of the one true God. Likewise, many of those who are so vociferous in their attacks against Christianity, while aware of our belief in God, claim to not believe in His existence personally. This makes no difference. God does not believe in atheists. You’ll remember when Paul was on the road to Damascus that Jesus appeared to him and reprimanded Paul for persecuting Him. We know however that Paul was actually persecuting Christians. Christ takes an assault on His people as an assault on His person. If someone were to personally attack, or attempt to attack, the first lady or her children, this would be seen by all as an attack on the president. We all understand this. This is the way God views His people, only magnified to an infinitely higher degree.

Nahum 1:6-8

Nahum 1:6-8 Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him. The LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. But with an overflowing flood he will make a complete end of the adversaries, and will pursue his enemies into darkness.

 

1:6-8 Many people struggle with the concept of the coexistence in God of love and wrath. But it seems rather simple to me. They are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin. His love for His people demonstrates the misery of the wicked and His wrath on the wicked demonstrates the blessedness of his people. In fact, one could say that the very act of wrath on the wicked is in itself a demonstration of His love for the righteous. When God killed Noah’s generation, He made the world a much safer place for Noah and his family. When God destroyed the cities of the plains he made a friendlier, more congenial environment for “righteous Lot” who was vexed by the rampant evil of his neighbors. When God poured out the ultimate wrath for sin on his own dear Son, He gave the most powerful demonstration possible of His love for the elect. He also gave the most powerful demonstration possible of His hatred for the reprobate by withholding from them His grace and the atoning efficacy of Christ’s death.

 

The wrath specifically referred to in this passage is the destruction of Nineveh. And this is portrayed as a boon for God’s people. Scripture says, “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31). And our life-breath is in his hands (Daniel 5:23). As a preacher friend of mine used to say, “All God has to do is tighten his grip – – – and you’ll have trouble breathing.” Actually one of the biggest hindrances that people have in accepting the doctrine of the wrath of God is that quite unscriptural saying: God hates the sin but loves the sinner. This is not from Scripture. Its roots lie in the Liberal Theology of the late 19^th century, whose motto was “the universal brotherhood of man and the universal fatherhood of God.” Scripture on the other hand clearly teaches that God is not the father of any sinner; the devil is (John 8:44). Scripture is clear that God hates both the sinner and his sin. It is a perfect hatred that is interested in nothing but the glory of God. When God pours out his wrath, the righteous can run to him as a stronghold, a refuge from the day of trouble. Scripture speaks of God “knowing” those that are His. This knowing is causative. He does not know them because they are his; they are His because He knows them. When Scripture speaks of God knowing someone, it always implies favor (Matthew 7:23). As the first epistle of John says we love God because He first loved us. That is, our love for Him is not a reciprocation, per se, but is actually caused by His love for us. Those who take refuge in God in the day of trouble, do so precisely because He knows them. His knowledge of them is causative: it is the cause of their taking refuge in him. This is quite plain from the fact that the text does not say, “Those who know him take refuge…” But it says, “those He knows take refuge…” There is a world of difference between those two statements. The former is Pelagian, the latter is biblical. Now it is true that those who take refuge in God know Him, but this must be qualified by adding that they know Him precisely because He knows them first. Neglecting this distinction leads to a Pelagian idea of salvation. Pelagianism is Deism with regard to the doctrine of salvation. It works on the assumption that man needs no intervention from God, because God has made us with all the necessary abilities to understand our plight and respond savingly. It discounts the need for Sovereign, Divine regenerating power to raise us out of the death of sin.

 

As with the declaration of the impending destruction of Nineveh, it will come to a “complete end.” Darkness is a scriptural metaphor for separation from God’s presence. God’s enemies will never know the peace of dwelling in his presence. There is also a good case for “Double Predestination.” Not only will God’s enemies not dwell in the light of his presence, he will actually chase them out of it into the darkness. Many advocates of predestination affirm that the predestination of the wicked is permissive rather than active/causative. I once held to this myself. But it seems to me to be a bit of an Arminian fear of nullifying man’s free will. This verse is pretty cut and dry.

 

This truth, that God determines sovereignly who shall be saved, and who shall not be saved, the doctrine that God is GOD, that He is the sovereign Lord, even in the matter of the salvation and damnation of man, is not according to the flesh, and does not meet with general approval. How could it find grace in the eyes of sinful men? It humbles all the pride of man. It casts him prostrate in the dust. In relation to God it makes him a mere nothing. It presents him as he truly is, as less than a drop of the bucket and the dust of the balance. It leaves him no power, no wisdom, no goodness, no glory whatever. And it exalts God as the only sovereign Lord, Who is in the heavens, and Who doeth whatsoever He pleaseth, Who forms the light, and creates darkness, Who makes peace, and creates evil, Isaiah 45:7; Who is the Potter, while we are the clay, and Who forms, according to His good pleasure, vessels unto honor, and vessels unto dishonor. Rom. 9:21; and Who declares unto pharaoh: "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth," Rom 9:17. How could it even be expected that this doctrine that exalts God and lays low all the pride of man, could find favor with sinful men that always exalt themselves against the living God?

 

Many objections are, and always have been raised against this truth, and we shall not discuss them all. There is, however, one objection that is as old as the truth itself, one that is supposed to expose the doctrine that salvation is of the Lord as both horrible and absurd, and which we may well examine for a moment. It is the well-known argument that the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty in the matter of salvation implies a denial of man's responsibility. If salvation is so absolutely the work of God that He alone determines it, and that man of himself can do nothing towards his own redemption and deliverance from sin, then, thus runs the objection, the sinner is no longer a moral agent, and God cannot justly hold him responsible in the day of judgment.

 

First of all, let’s point out that this is an old objection - very old. It has always been raised against the truth of God's sovereign dealings with men in the matter of salvation. Study the history of the Church and her doctrine, and you will discover that the primary objection of the opponents to the doctrine of absolutely sovereign grace was always the same. Always they accused those, who proclaimed this, that they made God the author of sin, and that they denied the responsibility of man. We can be comforted in this fact. When this indictment is brought against us, we can be assured that we are preaching the truth. This is especially of force, in view of the fact that the same accusations were lodged against Paul, which means that the objection is raised directly against the Scriptures. For in Romans 9 Paul is setting forth this same truth of God's sovereignty in the matter of salvation and damnation of the sinner. And there he meets two objections, which he knows will be and are being raised against this doctrine. The first is expressed in the question: "Is there unrighteousness with God?" And the second, denying the responsibility of man, is raised in the words: "Why does he still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

 

Secondly, Notice that the apostle Paul in the face of these objections does not apologize or withdraw anything he had said about God's sovereignty in the matter of salvation. He does not answer that he had been misunderstood or misconstrued. It’s pretty clear that the objector understood the apostle as having taught God's unconditional predestination. This is the only supposition on which the objections make any sense at all. An Arminian preacher who presents salvation as depending on the sinner's free will does not meet with these objections. Paul had been teaching that salvation is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy; and that, according to His sovereign good pleasure, God is merciful to whom He will be merciful, and whom He will He hardens. It is to this doctrine that the twofold objection is raised: then there is unrighteousness with God; and then man is not responsible, no one can resist his will. And if the objection had been due to a misunderstanding, the apostle could easily have removed the difficulty. In that case he would have modified his statements, and we would have found in Romans 9 an apology or explanation that Paul had been misunderstood or that his words had been misconstrued. Since Paul does nothing of the kind, it is clear that he concedes that his opponent had understood him correctly. Salvation is absolutely of the Lord.

 

Thirdly, I would like to point out that the apostle does not for one moment modify his teaching, by appealing to "another side" of this doctrine. He does not shift to "another track." This is often done by those who claim to believe in God's absolutely sovereign grace, and that exactly to meet the objections raised in Romans 9. They try to maintain a double faced theology. They profess to believe in the truth of absolute predestination and of God's sovereignty in the matter of salvation. But if the objection is raised that by this doctrine they violate the freedom of man and destroy his responsibility, they shift to another track and answer that this is a deep mystery, and that one must not curiously inquire any further into this profound truth.

 

Christians aren’t afraid of accepting mysteries. God is great, and we will never be able comprehend Him, though by His own revelation in Scripture we may know Him. He is the eternal, and we are children of time. He is the infinite, and we are finite. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and we are mere creatures. The more we meditate on His majesty and greatness, the deeper the mysteries become. To deny this would be to deny God Himself!

 

We don’t claim the ability to solve all theological questions regarding God and His relation to His creatures. However, while not denying mystery, we, with equal emphasis deny that mystery and contradiction are synonymous. If an appeal to mystery so-called were the proper answer to the opponents of God's sovereignty in the matter of salvation, shouldn’t we expect to find it in Romans 9? Because this is where, in the strongest terms possible Paul absolute predestination and God's sovereignty to save whom He will. And it was against this doctrine that the objection was raised, that this make God guilty of unrighteousness, and that man is without responsibility. Yet, the apostle does not point to another side of this truth. He does not apologize. He does not appeal to mystery. He leaves the truth to stand in all its implications.

 

Finally, let’s just cut to the chase and assert plainly that the objection that the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty destroys man's responsibility does not hold. The two do not contradict each other. The objection isn’t rooted in a logical difficulty. It comes from a sinful, radically rebellious attitude against God. The objector does not know his place. He is motivated by the desire to dethrone God. We can assert this because of what Scripture’s response to the objector is: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" When the Scriptures say that God is sovereign even in the matter of man's eternal destiny, that He is merciful to whom He will be merciful, it is God that speaks. When anyone objects to this that then He cannot find fault, that He cannot judge and that we are not responsible to Him, that is talking back to God. A man who talks back to God is a rebel and must be put back in his place. He is mere creature, and God is GOD! Man's responsibility in relation to God's absolutely sovereign dealings is a mystery, to be sure. I cannot fathom it. It is too deep for me. But it is no contradiction. The objection is foolish.

Nahum 1:3-5

Nahum 1:3-5 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and the LORD will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry; he dries up all the rivers; Bashan and Carmel wither; the bloom of Lebanon withers. The mountains quake before him; the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who dwell in it.

1:3-5 these declarations exhibit several things. Firstly, God is in complete control of Nature. Though he has set things in motion with regularity and, the so-called Laws of Nature, he is not the Deist’s god who wound up the clock and let it run without any further input. Hebrews 1:3 says that he upholds all things by the word of his power. I’ve always been fascinated by that expression. It is not “power of his word” but “word of his power.” That is to say spoken power – power articulated. Jonathan Edwards wrote of this sustaining power of God as being the force that holds all things together, the force which keeps the atoms splitting apart. Secondly, we see how intimately related God is to his creation – the seas, the plant, the mountains, etc. Thirdly, we are shown that natural disasters are truly “acts of God.” He frequently uses the weather and the forces of nature to punish. Floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, etc. are frequently mentioned in Scripture as God’s punishment upon sinful people. This verse specifically states that whirlwinds (i.e. tornadoes) are his “ways.” Ways of what? Why, ways of punishment, of course. Verse 3a says, “He will not leave the guilty unpunished.” Then it says that natural disasters are his “way.”

I wonder if it isn’t a tad Marcionic that we, as believers, no longer like to think of God’s sovereignty over the nations being evidenced in His control over the weather. We have sold our souls to the meteorologists and thus can no longer picture God using famine, drought, wildfires, floods, tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes as His tools of judgment. I can find no clue in Scripture that NT teaching implies that God’s control of the forces of nature diminished after the coming of Christ or that He simply wound up the clock of nature and let it go. Had our forefathers experienced Katrina, Andrew, the Bay Area earthquake or the attacks of 9/11, there is no doubt, nor should there be, that they would have seen them as a clear sign of Divine displeasure.

Another thing that comes to mind as I read this passage is how far this description is from what we hear proclaimed of God in Christian pulpits week after week. Serious consideration of this and similar passages would go a long way toward sobering us up and removing the levity from our midst. Tolkien complained that many people talked of God as if he were the “Lord Mayor.” A clear intellectual grasp of his power would instill in us that “fear of the Lord” of which the Scriptures so often speak. I wonder how many of us are prepared to affirm that drought, wildfires, flashfloods, hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards, as well as terrorist attacks, fires and other assorted disasters, truly come from the hand of God as punishment? Might we not be guilty of a Marcionic view of God if we can say, “Yes, in the Old Testament, but not anymore?”

Speaking of Deism, it might be pertinent to note there is also a type of Deism when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. BB Warfield wrote, “Genetically speaking, Pelagianism was the daughter of legalism; but when it itself conceived, it brought forth an essential deism. It is not without significance that its originators were, ‘a certain sort of monks,” that is, laymen of ascetic life. From that point of view the Divine law appears as a collection of separate commandments, moral perfection as a mere complex of separate virtues, and a distinct value as a meritorious demand on Divine approval is ascribed to each good work or attainment in the exercises of piety. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man’s powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity, and could even assert it to be possible for man to do more than is required of him. But, this is an essentially deistic conception of man’s relations to his Maker. God has endowed His creature with a capacity or ability for action; and it is for him to use it. Man is thus a machine, which, just because it is made well, needs no Divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him and endowed him with the ability, henceforth leaves the willing and the being to him.”

Why do I think this is such a powerful blast at Pelagianism? Think about what deism presupposes. It postulates a god who has created everything with built-in abilities and therefore it is inconsistent with his nature to intervene. For the god of deism to intervene, miraculously or any other way, is to admit a flaw in his creation that needs his attention. Miracle in Deism is always remedial. Miracle in Scripture is revelatory.

What does that have to do with the doctrine of salvation? At this point Pelagianism, and all its daughter systems, applies the same logic as deism. They assert that man has the innate ability to use his will to “decide” or “accept” Christ savingly. Indeed they see no value in a salvation in which the recipient does not actively participate. What else is this but the deistic assumption that God does not need to intervene in His creation because He created it with innate capacities and abilities? Here’s the rub: No Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian would ever profess to hold to the deistic conception of God. Indeed, modern Semi-Pelagians specialize in teaching God’s active participation and work in the world’s affairs (though certainly not to the same extent as the Reformation doctrine of the Sovereignty of God), nevertheless, they unconsciously operate on deistic principles when dealing with the doctrine of salvation.

God’s sovereign disposal of all events for His ultimate purposes is called “Providence.” The notion of Providence is actually a lot bigger in scope than most of us realize. The Heidelberg Catechism (which just celebrated it 450^th birthday Jan. 19, 1563) defines it this way: “The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, and all things come, not by chance, but by his fatherly hand.” For most of us Providence would look something like this: I was headed to the airport and something unexplainable happened to my car. I ended up missing my plane, which as it turns out, crashed. Or: I was walking past a construction site in a brick fell from 10 stories up, missed my head by inches and dropped on the ground. But we do not consider that had we made that flight and died in the crash, or had the brick bashed our skulk in, this too would have been Providence. Providence and sovereignty are so intimately related that they have to be thought of together. God is sovereign over all his creation and therefore in Providence rules over it and governs it exactly as he has willed to do. God’s Providence is his ruling and governing of his creation; God’s sovereignty is his right to do so.

Nahum 1:3 (Part 2)

There is deliberateness to all that God does. Saying that he is slow to anger is not the same as saying that he represses his anger until he cannot control it and goes amok. It means that whenever we see God angry it has been well-planned – it is never a fit of rage. This is no doubt what is alluded to in the previous verse, which in Hebrew, explicitly calls God the “master of fury.” God is the master of fury, not mastered by it. Just like a master of the tongue, that is, "eloquent." The Dutch theologian Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) describes this as, "One who, if He pleases, can most readily give effect to His fury"

There is a frightening connection made in this verse between God’s anger and his power. Many people are angry yet impotent to do anything about it. God is all powerful; he is the Almighty. When he gets angry he has all power to do whatever he wills to those with whom he is angry. This epithet, “slow to anger” is used by God of himself in Exodus 34:6 when he passes before Moses. Yet it seems to bear the opposite connotation here as it does there. In Exodus the emphasis is on God’s grace and compassion. Here the emphasis is on his justice. The most severe cases given in Scripture of God’s wrath poured out are the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the death of Christ, all of which show deliberate action, premeditated and planned. The justice of God is highlighted particularly in the second clause of this word. It is God’s glory that he doesn’t leave the guilty unpunished. Whatever injustice may pervade the affairs of men, God will rectify all things: some of this lifetime the rest at the Judgment.

“He afterwards adds, that God possesses wrath I do not take חֵמָה‎, (chema), simply for wrath, but the passion or heat of wrath. We ought not indeed to suppose, as it has been often observed, that our passions belong to God; for he remains ever like himself. But yet God is said to be for a time angry, and forever towards the reprobate, for he is our and their Judge. Here, then, when the Prophet says, that God is the Lord of wrath, or that he possesses wrath, he means that he is armed with vengeance and that, though he connives at the sins of men, he is not yet indifferent, nor even delays because he is without power, or because he is idle and careless, but that he retains wraths as he afterwards repeats the same thing, He keeps for his enemies. In short, by these forms of speaking the Prophet intimates that God is not to be rashly judged of on account of his delay, when he does not immediately execute His judgments; for he waits for the seasonable opportunity. But, in the meantime there is no reason for us to think that he forgets his office when he suspends punishment, or for a season spares the ungodly. When, therefore, God does not hasten so very quickly, there is no ground for us to think that he is indifferent, because he delays his wrath, or retains it, as we have already said; for it is the same thing to retain wrath, as to be the Lord of wrath, and to possess it.” Calvin Commentary on Nahum 1:3

“He now adds, By clearing he will not clear. Some translate, “The innocent, he will not render innocent.” But the real meaning of this sentence is the same with that in Exodus 34; and what Moses meant was, that God is irreconcilable to the impenitent.” ibid

God will not acquit the wicked. Never once has He blotted out sin without punishment. Calvary proves the truth of that. The wonders of vengeance in the Old Testament and hell itself are proofs of the text. Trace this terrible attribute to its source. Why is this? God will not acquit the wicked, because He is good. Goodness itself demands the punishment of the sinner. The justice of God demands it.

Earlier we mentioned the scoffers of 2 Peter 3:4, “Where is the promise of His coming?” and Peter’s response that the slowness in punishing the evil that we may be tempted to ascribe unto God is actually for our benefit because God is waiting until everyone of His elect come unto Him: He is patient toward us, this is the reason for the imaginary delay in punishing the wicked.

The larger context, i.e., 2 Peter 3:4-9 says: This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the Day of Judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

           

We should note that God’s “patience” is not with the wicked; it is with the elect, whom Peter addresses as “you.” God’s attribute of being longsuffering is never directed at the ungodly. It is always directed at His covenant people. The wicked who aren’t punished instantly merely benefit from it, of you can call delayed damnation a “benefit.”

In an essay called “The Scriptural Presentation of God’s Hatred,” published in 1967, Homer C. Hoeksema writes, “We must understand, in this connection, that the Word of God throughout draws a very sharp line of demarcation between the godly and the ungodly, the righteous and the wicked, the church and the world, the children of light and the children of darkness. We must not fall into the error that is so common today, and that sounds so piously evangelistic, of speaking simply of the ‘unconverted,’ conceiving then of the unconverted from our own point of view, not as God sees and knows and views them. When Scripture makes the distinction between the godly and the ungodly, it always refers principally to the ungodly that will never be converted, the ungodly that will persist in his ungodliness until he is cast into everlasting destruction. Nor must we say that we cannot very well make these the object of our contemplation for the simple the reason that we do not know who they are. For, in the first place, while it may be true that the individual identity of the ungodly to a certain extent may belong to the realm of the secret things, nevertheless the fact that there are such men belongs to the revealed things of God. This must be reckoned with, both as far as the preaching of the gospel is concerned, lest the preacher delude himself that all men are potential converts, and as far as the life and calling of God's people in the midst of the world are concerned, lest they make common course with the wicked. In the second place, we must not forget the principal truth: by their fruits ye shall know them. And, in the third place, the question is not whether we in every case can individually distinguish the ungodly, but whether God knows them, and what is His attitude toward them. And then the fact is that God does not have before His divine eyes a mass of unconverted men who are possible candidates for conversion; but there are before Him the righteous and the unrighteous, the godly and the ungodly,—two distinct classes of men.”

All of this simply means that reprobation serves election. As Lorraine Boettner put it:

This decree of reprobation also serves subordinate purposes in regard to the elect; for, in beholding the rejection and final state of the wicked,

(1) they learn what they too would have suffered had not grace stepped in to their relief, and they appreciate more deeply the riches of divine love which raised them from sin and brought them into eternal life while others no more guilty or unworthy than they were left to eternal destruction.

(2) It furnishes a most powerful motive for thankfulness that they have received such high blessings.

(3) They are led to a deeper trust of their heavenly Father who supplies all their needs in this life and the next.

(4) The sense of what they have received furnishes the strongest possible motive for them to love their heavenly Father, and to live as pure lives as possible.

(5) It leads them to a greater abhorrence of sin.

(6) It leads them to a closer walk with God and with each other as specially chosen heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

(7) In regard to the sovereign rejection of the Jews, Paul destroys at the source any accusation that they were cast off without reason. “Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: for by their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy,” Rom. 11:11. Thus we see that God’s rejection of the Jews was for a very wise and definite purpose; namely, that salvation might be given to the Gentiles, and that in such a way that it would react for the salvation of the Jews themselves. Historically we see that the Christian Church has been almost exclusively a Gentile Church. But in every age some Jews have been converted to Christianity, and we believe that as time goes on much larger numbers will be “provoked to jealousy” and caused to turn to God. Several verses in the eleventh chapter of Romans indicate that considerable numbers are to be converted and that they will be extremely zealous for righteousness.        

Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:1-3 ESV)

Nahum 1:3 (Part 1)

Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and the LORD will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. 

This verse contains what Hebrew grammar experts refer to as a “conjunctive waw.” This is the use of the Hebrew letter waw as a conjunction, either to equate two separate nouns or modifiers. On some occasions the conjunctive waw functions to indicate hendiadys. Hendiadys is the expression of an idea by the use of two usually independent words connected by and (as nice and warm) instead of the usual combination of independent word and its modifier (as nicely warm). Other examples of hendiadys are: “The cold and the wind blew down the hall,” and “She stared with eyes and envy.” This conveys a more complex idea that “cold wind” or “envious eyes.”

As it is utilized in this verse, the conjunctive waw means that to say The Lord is “slow to anger” and to say “great in power” is to say the exact same thing. The conjunctive waw is used again in verse 7 in exactly the same stylistic way as it is used here. This is significant when you compare vv 3-6 with 7-10 and note the exact correspondence the two sides have to each other and that they both have to the two-fold declaration of God’s character in verse 2, i.e., jealous for His people and wrathful on His enemies.

If, as I have continuously contended, this message is for God’s people, not Nineveh, then “The LORD is slow to wrath,” should be understood as have primary reference to God’s people. This means that the whole book has this undercurrent to it. The passage is not, then, primarily an answer to the question of Job 21:7; Psalm 37 and Psalm 73, i.e., “Why do the wicked prosper?” 

How then do we understand this statement: “The LORD is slow to wrath”? There is no doubt in my mind that God intended Judah to understand this:

(1) With reference to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and

(2) With reference to themselves, and finally,

(3) With reference to Nineveh.

(1). With reference to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Assyrian had been God’s tool for disciplining the wayward Northern Kingdom of Israel. This occurred circa 722 BC, roughly 70 years before the writing of this prophecy. From the start of the divided kingdom until the Assyrian captivity of the Northern Kingdom (210 years), Israel did not have a single good king; every one of them was evil. In saying that God is slow to wrath, Judah should have understood that rebellious Israel was long deserving of chastisement. Had God not been slow to wrath, they would have been dealt with quite a bit sooner and with far greater severity.

(2) With reference to themselves. Remembering that this is addresses to God’s people, the words “slow to anger” are intended to assure us that God is not ignorant of our plight. This is reminiscent of the statement of the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:4, “Where is the promise of His coming?” To which Peter replies that the slowness in punishing the evil that we may be tempted to ascribe unto God is actually for our benefit because God is waiting until everyone of His elect come unto Him: He is patient toward us, this is the reason for the imaginary delay in punishing the wicked.

Judah should have taken God’s discipline of Israel as a warning for themselves. God had patiently dealt with a rebellious people for over 200 years. Notwithstanding, He had actually done what He had threatened and now Israel (i.e., the Northern Kingdom) was no more. Judah, while having at least 5 good kings (out of 20 monarchs [including evil Queen Athaliah]), was mediocre at best in its faithfulness to God’s covenant. Therefore there is an undercurrent of warning to the unfaithful among Judah that God can and will chastise them as He had done to Israel. This comes in the exact same words which comfort the faithful remnant of Judah. What greater comfort is there to struggling believers than “The LORD is slow to wrath”?

Psalm 103:8 -19 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.

The uniform testimony of Scripture about God’s wrath is that:

(a) it is aimed at His enemies.

Lamentations 3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end;

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.

(b) sinners have no recourse against it.

Zephaniah 1:18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4 Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.

(c) Christ shields the elect from it.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

All of this adds up to the truth that God’s wrath, as far as God’s people are concerned, is a preservative attribute which functions subservient to their salvation. This is the uniform testimony of Scripture. This leads us to the third point:

(3) With reference to Nineveh. Assyria was simply God’s tool for disciplining His people. He had no other use for them. They were reprobate. He had not chosen them; He had neither given them His word, nor the means of grace. They had been excluded from salvation, which is what reprobate means. However, their damnation was not simply an end in itself: it was a means to an end. That end is two-fold, just like election: The ultimate aim is God’s glory, only secondarily is it for our salvation.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. KJV (Reprobation is for God. He made the reprobate for His purpose.)

Romans 9:22-24a What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called ESV

Proverbs 21:18 The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the treacherous is in the place of the upright. NASB (This verse and the preceding, teach the subservience of Reprobation to Election.)

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you.

                                                                                                                

“[T]he work of redemption itself was ordained principally for Christ's glory, more than for our salvation. In Phil. 2:7, the Apostle tells us, that Jesus Christ took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient to the death (there is the work of redemption); ‘wherefore,' saith he, 'God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name,' etc. The plot of redemption therefore was subjected to the glory of Christ, and not Christ to it.”

“God's glory therefore is more interested in our salvation than our own good is, for not our benefit comes in here, in the mention of what moved God, but the praise of the glory of his grace only.” Thomas Goodwin, Commentary on Ephesians 1

“God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific purpose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures, He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He foresaw that in creating a certain person that that person would despise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; faith is God’s gift, and the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation—‘He that believeth not shall be damned’— hence if there were some of Adam’s descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith, it must be because He ordained that they should be damned.” A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God

“He who occasionally preaches only on election, without relating it whatsoever to reprobation, is not preaching election. This is still more true of reprobation, which is the antithetical counterpart of election. It belongs with election. It can be understood only in the light of election. It must accordingly be presented in its relation to election.

“It is also evident that, when preaching on election and reprobation, we must not place them dualistically over against each other. They are not on the same level. They are not corresponding halves of the same thing, but together they form a unity. Reprobation should always be presented as subordinate to election, as serving the latter according to God's counsel. From this it follows that reprobation should not be preached with a certain delight in the doctrine. He who is forever preaching reprobation shows not only that he is harsh and cruel, but also that he has not understood the work of the Lord God. God's love remains the central thought. He has chosen in His eternal love; and, for the sake of this love, He has also reprobated. Thus all God's work becomes a beautiful organic unity. In this way He is and remains God, and He alone. Thus, at the conclusion of all this, we exclaim in adoration with the apostle, ‘Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; for of him and through him and to him are all things! To him be glory forever!’ “ – Herman Hoeksema, The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel