Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today Thabiti Anyabwile posted an article arguing that “reparations are biblical” at The Gospel Coalition. I’ll begin by saying that I have in the past been edified by Thabiti’s ministry.

I do find it confusing that Anyabwile posts this argument for reparations only days after a post arguing that there is no social justice movement in American evangelicalism. I don’t intend to address the specific issue of reparations. I want to address his confusion of divine providence with divine justice.

Anyabwile’s biblical argument for reparations is quite dangerous and confusing. His argument comes from the book of Ezra. Thabiti focuses on God’s working through pagan kings in Ezra’s day to fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. He rightly observes, “Ezra really records the fulfilling of God’s promise.” Then Thabiti focuses on how King Darius decrees that the “tribute” from the “royal revenue” from “the province from Beyond the River” was given to the Jewish people for rebuilding the temple. Thabiti’s argument that Darius’s decree is God’s justice. He argues, “In other words, Darius, as head of state, compels his citizens through taxes to pay a reparation to Israel even though those citizens did not commit the offense and those Israelites did not directly suffer the offense.”

Then comes the punch line. Thabiti says,

If God, who is just and only does justice, has acted in this way then it cannot be unjust for nation-states to voluntarily repay its own citizens for crimes suffered at its hands–no matter when the crimes occurred.

Pastor Anyabwile adds a couple paragraphs later:

If reparations of this sort is an injustice based on the objections above, then those who hold those objections have the unenviable responsibility of showing that God himself is unjust since all that happens in Ezra happens according to God’s premeditated plan.

I agree with Thabiti that this is the part of the record of the fulfillment of God’s Word. Yet I have a few objections to his reasoning. I do not believe we can draw a straight line from the fulfillment of Scripture to God’s justice. In fact, I think it’s very dangerous to do so. Here are my reasons:

  1. Thabiti’s argument seems to imply that all that Darius did in this context was God’s justice. This would arguably include Ezra 6:11, where Darius threatens that all who refuse to pay the tax, “Also I make a decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of his house, and he shall be impaled on it, and his house shall be made a dunghill.” (Ezra 6:11, ESV) Here’s my question for Thabiti: Is this just too? Is this, by God’s justice, a right punishment for tax evasion? It may well be that Ezra means to say, “This threatened punishment is good and just.” If it is, we must accept it as biblical authority. But I’m not sure that’s a good conclusion to draw. Is it a mark of God’s justice for those who don’t pay taxes to be impaled on a beam from their house just before their house becomes a dunghill? Do you intend to do this to all who fail to pay your reparation tax? Would you recommend that the US government threaten its citizens in this way? I’d suggest that a better reading of that verse is that Ezra is highlighting the extraordinary lengths to which Darius was determined to bring about the construction of the second temple, even if imprudent as far as pagan monarchs go. But I’d like to hear Thabiti’s answer to my questions. If one part of the edict incontrovertibly shows God’s justice, then the other part does as well.
  2. I don’t think the situation in Ezra translates to American slavery questions (or any other kind of reparations) neatly by analogy. Thabiti conflates the Old Testament people of God and their particular calling in the Mosaic covenant with American slaves. What God did for Israel was in part due to their special calling, not because they were an oppressed people per se. In fact, Israel deserved God’s judgment for their idolatry and covenant breaking. All that happened here is really a testament to God’s mercy, more than God’s justice.
  3. Most importantly, Pastor Anyabwile seems to be arguing that since God used Darius to fulfill prophecy, God approved of Darius’s actions as just. This is bad theology, plain and simple. If this kind of reasoning were true, think of how many sins God would be calling just. I’ll give just three examples. Example 1: God foretold that Jehu would bring judgment upon the house of Ahab and become king (2 Kings 9:1-13). Yet I don’t think that all Jehu did is necessarily supposed to read as good and just. This would certainly be the case of his toleration of the golden calves in Israel (see 2 Kings 10:28-31). Example 2: God foretold that his Son would die for men. If we’re following Thabiti’s reasoning, the sin of crucifying the Lord of glory would be just, which God plainly denies (Acts 2:23; 1 Cor 2:8; et. al.) Example 3: God foretold that Babylon would execute his justice upon Judah for their sins against him (Isa 43:27-28; Jer 20:4; Hab 1:5-11). Babylon committed horrible atrocities in the execution of this. God plainly did not approve of Babylon’s sin (Isa 47:6; Hab 2:15-20; Jer 50:7-16), yet God used sinful Babylon in their iniquities as a tool of his righteous judgment upon Israel. We cannot affirm that Babylon’s atrocities against Israel were just, yet God plainly used them, in the mystery of his providence. The sum of the matter is this: it is very hazardous to draw a line from the fulfillment of God’s Word to God’s approval of the actions that fulfilled his Word as moral good or just.

There are more reasons to object to Thabiti’s post. In the end, the most important part of his argument–the argument from Scripture itself–fails.