Does God Not Want a Relationship With Everyone?
Summary
If God knew Tyre and Sidon would repent if He sent miracles, then why didn’t He? Does He not love them as much as others? And if not, how does that square with all the sermons saying God seeks a love relationship with all of us?
The solution is found in realizing God isn’t obligated to save anyone. But out of grace, He does provide enough information for us to be saved, even if He doesn’t answer every single question.
The argument can be stated as follows. I’ll show why I think (2) is true and why (1) is where the problem lies. God gives us sufficient information to be saved, but not all the information we request.
If God wants a relationship with everyone, He’ll give them all the information possible.
God didn’t give all the information possible to Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 11:20-24).
Therefore, God doesn’t want a relationship with everyone.
Exposition of Matthew 11:20-24 – Would they have been saved by the miracles?
Matthew 11:20–24 (NASB 95)
20Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
21“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22“Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
23“And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
24“Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
Was Jesus using hyperbole?
One escape is to claim Jesus didn’t really mean the ancient cities would have repented. He was just using hyperbole.
While I can’t deny it’s possible Jesus uses hyperbole here, there’s nothing clearly indicating He does. A hyperbole is just “the intentional use of exaggeration or overstatement for emphasis”[1], but repenting in sackcloth and ashes was a literal thing people did.
Capernaum’s descent to Hades could be hyperbolic, but that doesn’t concern Tyre or Sidon. Regardless, interpreting this as hyperbole wouldn’t negate Tyre and Sidon’s hypothetical repentance.
How to interpret hyperbole?
“How should we interpret a hyperbole? The first thing is to recognize it and call it what it is—a conscious exaggeration used for the sake of effect. Then we need to analyze what truth is expressed by the exaggeration [2].”
For example, when Jesus says to gouge our right eye out if it causes us to sin, that’s obviously hyperbole. He’s telling us to fight hard against temptation. The exaggeration shows how great an effort is required.
So, if Jesus is using hyperbole here, it’s to emphasize the plight of those who ignored the miracles since Tyre and Sidon would have responded. The comparison wouldn’t make sense if Tyre and Sidon wouldn’t have repented.
Also, any exaggeration here would be the “sackcloth and ashes,” not repentance. Putting on sackcloth and ash was an extreme way to show repentance. So, the core truth of Tyre and Sidon’s repentance given the miracles would still hold, even if they wouldn’t literally put on sackcloth and ash. Appealing to hyperbole wouldn’t change this.
Was Jesus talking about individuals’ salvation or the cities’ preservation?
A second escape is to say Jesus is talking about cities being destroyed, not the citizens’ eternal salvation. But I think this is hard to support.
Cities don’t change “minds.” Individuals do.
Cities are just a collection of individuals. So, at least some of the individuals would have to repent for the “city” to have repented. And while Jesus does use the singular “you” when referencing Chorazin and Bethsaida, He uses the plural “you” later in Matthew 11:21, indicating He’s talking to individual citizens. So, since He’s drawing a comparison with individuals in the present-day cities, He’s likely referring to the individuals in the ancient cities.
“Sackcloth and ashes” indicate personal repentance that would have saved.
Compare Tyre and Sidon with the ancient people of Ninevah. In Jonah 3:4-5, the people heed Jonah’s warning and repent in sackcloth and ash. Then in Matthew 12:41, Jesus says Ninevah will stand up and condemn the current generation in the Day of Judgement, whereas Tyre and Sidon will still receive a lighter judgement. This judgement will occur at the end of time, so Jesus can’t be referring to just the destruction of the historical cities.
And since Nineveh will condemn that generation, this indicates those people were saved. So, since the “sackcloth and ash” repentance led to the people of Ninevah’s salvation, it would have led to the people of Tyre and Sidon’s salvation as well. So, individuals’ salvation is in view here.
Will God do everything possible to save someone?
So even though God withheld the miracles that would have led to their repentance, this doesn’t mean God didn’t really love them. He warned them over and over and they wouldn’t change (cf. Amos 1:9, Ezekiel 26:3, Zechariah 9:3-4). What it shows is God gives us sufficient information to be saved, not optimal.
Sufficient vs. optimal information
By “sufficient information,” I mean we get enough information to know God and repent. “Optimal information” would be to have every possible question answered or proven through miracles before repenting and trusting God.
To some, this may sound harsh or unfair. But realizing God isn’t obligated to save, He places us in history so we can know Him, and He judges based on the information we did have shows giving sufficient information is enough to be just and loving.
God isn’t obligated to save
Philippians 2:5-9 (NASB 95)
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
While there’s a lot of theology packed into these verses, the focus for this is Jesus’s free choice in coming to earth to save us. He chose to “humble Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.” He wasn’t obligated. So even though “He existed in the form of God,” He freely chose to be identified with humans so He could take the punishment we deserved (cf. Hebrews 2:17).
Romans 9:14-16 (NASB 95)
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Romans 9 is a chapter some preachers fear to tread. But regardless of what we do with it, the key theme is God can save how He wants.
The “not this, but this” grammatical construction can be stated different ways in Greek, but Paul chooses to use one of the strongest (οὐ... ἀλλά...). “Although there are several contrastive or adversative particles, ἀλλά adds the unique constraint of correcting some aspect of what precedes.[3]” And “if the conjunction is preceded by a negative clause, “the antithesis is sharp…”[4].”
So, Paul is drawing a sharp contrast between “depend on the man who wills” and “God who has mercy.” And the corrective aspect of the Greek grammar indicates it’s all dependent on “God who has mercy.” So God saves because He wants to, not because He’s obligated.
God determines our time and place in history so we can come to know Him
Acts 17:26 (NASB 95)
“…He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us…“
Here, we see God chooses our time and place on earth specifically so we can know Him. So, He’s active in providing us with at least enough information to find Him. We’re not just wandering around with no help.
God judges us on the information we did receive.
Matthew 11:20-24 is a primary text to support this. But instead of rehashing that, Romans 2 is another popular supporting text.
Romans 2:11-12 (NASB 95)
“For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law…”
Romans 2:1-16 is a hard passage to interpret theologically. But a common theme is the difference in judgement for those who didn’t have the Old Testament laws. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass (cf. Romans 1:20), but that God considers the amount of information (or light) they did receive.
So, to give more light to someone who would reject it anyway would only increase the punishment they deserve. And since God wants us to repent, not just agree He exists (James 2:19), sufficient information is enough.
Application
I realize the question “what happens to those who never hear the Gospel” is begging to be asked at this point. But that will need multiple posts to work through.
For now, it’s important to realize we don’t fall under that category. We either have heard or have access to God’s gospel. And we’ll be judged accordingly.
Repent today since tomorrow isn’t promised.
The Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked how he’d explain his atheism to God if it turned out He was real. His response was, “Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence.”
While I look forward to writing on the arguments for and against Christianity, Russell’s excuse won’t fly when we stand before God. And if God judges us based on the opportunities we did receive, that should be a terrifying thought for Americans – especially us here in the Bible Belt.
So today is the day to obey God. If not, we’ll answer for it.
Acts 17:30-31 (NASB 95)
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Citations
[1] Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 69.
[2] Leland Ryken, Jesus the Hero: A Guided Literary Study of the Gospels, Reading the Bible as Literature (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 116.
[3] Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), 93.
[4] Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), 92.