Peter Witkowski Apologetics, Discipleship, Pain & Suffering

How Amos Helps to Shape the Christian Response to Wicked-on-Wicked Violence

When the world of sin and darkness turns in upon itself producing horrific results, Christians should neither rejoice nor participate in such evil. Rather, they should call both those attacking and those being attacked to repentance.

Two Nations Steeped in SIn

In Amos 2, the Old Testament prophet declares that the nation of “Moab shall die amid the uproar, amid the shouting and the sound of the trumpet (2:2).” The prophet’s listeners would have readily assented to Moab’s judgement. Moab which came into existence through incest (Gen 19:36-38) was forever and always at odds with Israel. They hired Balaam of talking donkey fame to curse the Jews as they entered the promise land (albeit unsuccessfully) and kept up the attacks long after Israel became a nation. One of Israel’s first judges, Ehud, famously delivered Israel from Moabite rule when he thrust a sword into the Moabite king who was so fat that “the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade (Jg. 3:22).

Though God’s declarations of doom against Moab were rather standard affairs by the end of the Judean empire, God’s justification for punishing the Moabites would have surprised Amos’ original audience. This time Moab will be destroyed for their sins against other sinners. Amos predicts that Moab will be burned with fire because it “burned to lime the bones of the King of Edom (Amos 2:1).”

Like Moab, Edom excels at persecuting the Jews. Amos chapter one records that the nation of Edom had partnered with Philistia and Tyre to betray and enslave God’s people (Amos 1:6, 9). Next, Edom took up arms and violently pursued the Jews to whom they were distantly related. The Edomites lacked compassion, loved evil, and delighted in opposing God and terrorizing the Jews. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the descendants of Esau rejoiced “over the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate (Ez 35:15).” Because of Edom’s sins, Amos reports that God “will send a fire upon Teman and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah (Amos 1:12).” As the prophet Joel notes, the cities of Edom would become in-turn “a desolate wilderness (Joel 3:19).” The prophet Obadiah concurs writing of Edom that it “shall be as though they never had been (Ob 16).

In short, Amos has declared that God will judge the wicked nation of Moab for having abused the wicked nation of Edom. The sin of one nation or people against another person or nation (regardless of how wicked said person or nation is) is never excusable. The Lord who rules over all will hold all to account for their sins, irrespective of their victim’s merits.

Lesson’s From The Fallen

Amos’ prophecy reveals that the proper response to Moab’s vengeance and Edom’s calamity is not rejoicing but warning. When false churches burn down, when cult leaders are murdered, or when one war lord is violently dismembered by another war lord, Christians should not sin against their enemies through misplaced rejoicing, a neglect of justice, or participation in said sins. Christians should not berate the followers of cults on X as they grieve the deaths of their loved ones. They should not turn a blind eye to the brother who murders an abortion doctor. And, they should not join those rioting because they disagree with a court’s unjust verdict. The sins of others never excuse or justify new sins, especially the sins of God’s people.

When Christians see a Muslim attacking a Buddhist, they should lovingly call both groups to repentance. They should call the one sinning to repent for God will judge their sins and hates their violence. And they should call the one being sinned against to repentance. While the attacked will not be judged for their attacker’s sins, they will still die for their sins…for their idolatry, cruel words, and rejection of the Bible. An even greater and more perfect judgement awaits all of humanity regardless of whether they are suffering or cause suffering. Anyone not covered in the saving blood of Jesus will spend eternity in hell. The suffering of the wicked should not move Christians to mock and attack the wicked when they hurt. Rather it should drive them to once again to lovingly call their lost neighbors and family members to repent lest they die.

The Wider Discussion

This response to the suffering of the wicked extends beyond Amos, aligning with the broader witness of Scripture. According to the Old Testament, God not only judges the wicked, he longs to see them saved. Decades after Amos had receded into the background, the prophet Ezekiel declared, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ez 33:11)”

Such sentiments also align with the witness of the New Testament. When Jesus was asked about the horrific deaths of the Galileans who had their blood mixed with the blood of animals, the Messiah turned the conversation towards repentance, declaring, “but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Similarly, Jesus continues to delay the final judgment and the recreation of the universe because as the apostle Peter notes in 2 Peter 3:9, “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.” While God often uses one wicked nation or person to justly punish the wickedness of another nation or person, the Lord never delights in their sorrow. He desires to see all repent.

Conclusion

When Christians see the wicked attacking the wicked, they should not rejoice in the suffering of the wicked nor share in such sins. God does not rejoice in the calamity of the wicked. Those who faithfully follow the Lord Jesus Christ will use such moments to spread the gospel and to call those walking in darkness to embrace the light of Jesus. They will love their enemies.

Peter Witkowski Discipleship

Lessons from Nathan’s Rebuke: Effective Strategies for Christian Confrontation

Nathan’s rebuke of David in 2 Samuel 12:1-14 establishes both the need for rebuke (see: Rebuke: An Overlook and Yet Necessary Means of Grace) and the structural framework through which rebuke is most effective.

Don’t Tell Stories (Maybe)

To argue that Christian’s should model their rebukes on Nathan’s rebuke of David is not to claim that every rebuke should be built around a moving morality tale. God divinely inspired Nathan’s narrative. Our imaginations and our AI algorithms are not so inspired. For example, when Joab takes his turn at story telling in 2 Samuel 14 seeking to restore David’s relationship with Absalom, the general spawns a civil war.

Moreover, when Elijah confronts King Ahab, the prophet employs only imperatives, telling Ahab, “I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals (1 Kg 18:18).”  Nathan’s introductory story proves to be descriptive instead of normative.  Thus, a story could be both helpful and unhelpful.

However, the principles behind imbedded in Nathan’s rebuke can and should be replicated by Christians seeking to restore their fallen brothers and sisters. As Nathan before them, believers should do the following four things when issuing a rebuke: they should identify sin as “sin”, affirm the goodness of God, warn of sin’s consequences, and offer mercy.

Identify Sin as “Sin”

In confronting David’s sin, Nathan drives for a hard edge. He does not suggest that David did something wrong nor ask him to mull over what he did and see if he will do something different next time. Nathan dispenses with all nuance and labels King’s adultery and murder as “sin.” The prophet tells David, “You have despised the word of the Lord to do what is evil in his sight…You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife (2 Sam 12:9-10).”

For our rebukes to be both just and effective, we must show the David’s in our lives that he or she has transgressed not only our sensibilities but the very words of God. Moreover, where the Bible proves clear and unnuanced, the followers of Christ must also be clear and unnuanced. Sleeping with someone other than your spouse (Eph 5:5-6), disobeying one’s parents (6:1), or telling crude jokes (Eph 4:29) are not misjudgments or the byproducts of biology. They are sins. And if we hope to see a sinner repent, we must help the sinner grasp the sinfulness of their actions. Men who see no sin will see no need to turn from his sin. To quote C.S. Lewis, “A man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.”

Affirm the Goodness of God

After establishing sin as sin, the believer should disarm the sinner’s primary defense mechanism with a refresher course in God’s character. Since the beginning of time, humans have been blaming God for their failings. Adam said God was the one responsible for humanity’s fall because after all Eve was God’s idea (and not Adam’s). Adam lamented, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate (Gen 3:12).”

Before David can join Adam in the blame game, Nathan reminds King that God has giving David everything he could ask for and more. The prophet declares on God’s behalf, “‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more (2 Sam 12:7b-8).” David did not sin because the Lord failed to keep his promises. He did not sin because his other wives had neglected him or lost their youthful sex appeal. He did not sin because he had a hard upbringing or had suffered trauma on the battlefield. God had protected him, sustained him, and blessed him at every turn and been with him in every hardship. David sinned not because God had forgotten him but because David had forgotten God.

What was true of David is true of every believer overrun with sin. God has withheld nothing good from us nor anything essential for our spiritual well being. Psalm 84:11 reminds us, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.” We have no excuse for surrendering to temptation.

I am not arguing that the Lord gives us all that we desire. We often desire wrong things and good things in wrong ways. Moreover, life is ultimately not found in earthly blessings such as marriage and financial security but in being with Christ. Jesus will give us everything that we need to be with him in paradise if we will but ask. As Paul reminds us, he “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us (Eph 3:20).” In other words, we fall into sin not because God is deficient but because our faith is deficient. The Lord is good.

Warn of Sin’s Consequences

Though the Lord will forgive David and all who repent, Nathan still reminds David of the consequences of his sin: “because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die (2 Sam 12:14).”  At first glance, this punishment appears unjust. The son should not die for the sins of the father. But such a reading grants David far too much power.

The child’s death was not caused by David’s sin. The child would have died no matter what David did or did not do because the child descends from another father: Adam. As the Apostle Paul notes in Romans 5:12, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” David’s son, like all sons of Adam, dies because he had a nature like Adam. David’s sin does not create death. It shortens life.

The same proves true of sin today. It’s consequences reach far beyond the sinner’s immediate life. For example, Children of divorce are 33% more like to live in poverty than those with intact families (Get Married). Children with parents in prison are more than 40% more likely to struggle with anxiety, depression, PTSD, and a wide spectrum of health issues from migraines to obesity. Sin always produces the fruit of sorrow and destruction.

To effectively rebuke others, we must help them appreciate the deadly consequences of their sin so that they can grasp depth and width of their sin’s true cost. Confession can and does prove costly. Confessing fraud could lead to one’s firing, confessing an affair could wreck one’s marriage, and confessing abuse could lead to imprisonment. An effective rebuke will lay out the full cost of one’s sin so that the believer can appreciate the wickedness of their sin and thereby be turned from it. The goal of rebuke is for the David in our lives to understand that they have “sinned against the Lord (2 Sam 12:13).”

Offer Mercy

Lastly, Nathan offers David the hope of divine forgiveness. Though the consequences of David’s sin remain, the Lord’s judgement does not. Nathan reports, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die (2 Sam 12:13b).” God’s forgiveness explains both why Christians should use rebuke and why those in sin should heed those rebukes. Everything David lost because of his sin and its consequences will be regained in heaven. In other words, David will go to his son because a future heir of David will be born in a manger, resist all temptation, and then die on the cross and rise again thereby canceling the record of sin and death.

Like, Nathan we too should remind the David’s in our lives of the goodness of God’s mercy. Though our sins maybe large, complicated, gross, and intricate, Christ blood is more powerful still. James the brother of Jesus offers the following comfort to the contrite soul, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:8-11).” All who turn from their sin will be exalted to live with Christ. Like Nathan before us, we should infuse every rebuke with the promise of forgiveness and restoration.

Final Thoughts

Though these principles of confrontation come the Scriptures, their power lies not in our use of them but in Spirit working through them. David repents because the Lord opened his eyes. We cannot restore anyone in our strength. But we can faithfully apply the truth of God’s word to the David’s in our life, calling sin “sin,” affirming the goodness of God, warning of sin’s consequences, and offering mercy.

Peter Witkowski Discipleship

The Best and Worst of Times: Thoughts on the 2025 Annual Meeting

Despite its overuse, I cannot help but once again trod out Charles Dicken’s line to describe my time at the 2025 Annual Meeting (SBC Convention). “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

The Best of Times

With respect to renewed friendships and the general tenor of the platform, the 2025 Convention was the best of times. The convention facilitated reunions with faithful brothers who played basketball with me during my MDiv days at Southern Seminary and who pushed through mounds of books with me as we worked on our PhD’s at Midwestern Seminary. I rejoiced to see my brothers and sisters steadfastly advancing the gospel through their homes, local churches, and seminaries.

Moreover, the 9Marks at Nine forums, and the Midwestern Seminary lunches refreshed and encouraged my heart. In addition to offering insights into how messengers should think about the SBC’s financial struggles, men such as Dr. Mohler, Dr. Allen, Dr. Leeman, Dr. Akin, and Dr. Dever steadfastly stood for the gospel as they called for the SBC to adopt more Scriptural mission’s strategies, to recognize the need for doctrinal fidelity, and to pass the Law/Sanchez amendment which affirms that the office of pastor is restricted to qualified men. Similarly, Dr. Mark Dever should be commended for leading the attendees at the 9Marks at Nine events to loudly praise the Lord through the singing of hymns. I enjoyed circling about the 9Marks and the Seminary booths.  

Good things also occurred on the platform.  Dr. Andrew Walker of Southern Seminary graciously and yet resolutely led the convention to adopt a “a very conservative slate of resolutions,” These resolutions affirmed the moral evils and dangers of chemical abortion pills; the need to affirm God’s design for gender, marriage, and the family; the need to ban pornography; and, the harmful and predatory nature of sports betting. Throughout the debates leading up to the passage of these resolutions by almost universal assent, Dr. Walker listened intently to the various amendments put forward by the messengers. He responded graciously to all their concerns, rejecting those amendments that would have weakened the resolutions and accepting the one that strengthened the resolution on sexuality. The interactions between Dr. Walker and the messengers (as well as those between President Clint Pressley – who was elected to a second term as SBC President – and the messengers) displayed the very best of SBC polity: leaders determined to lead the convention yet open to conversation with and biblical correction from the floor. It was the best of times!

But while the platform accomplished much good, it also brought about harm…the worst of times.

The Worst of Times

With the Law/Sanchez Amendment speeding towards a vote, Dr. Jeff Iorg (President of the Executive Committee) walked to the convention microphone at its most electric moment. But instead of calling the messengers to submit their consciences and their votes to the clear teaching of Scripture, Dr. Iorg told them to fear lawsuits. He encouraged them to shy away from the implications of their Scripture-infused doctrinal statement . He claimed that such fidelity to truth would lead to lawsuits that could further drain the Executive Committee’s depleted budget. Dr. Iorg’s statement proved as monumental as it was erroneous.  

To begin with, his argument misconstrued the SBC’s legal standing. The SBC can no more be sued for limiting the office of pastor to qualified men than it can be sued for affirming the practice of believers’ baptism. Constitutional lawyer and ERLC Fellow Mathew Martens’ bluntly said of Dr. Iorg’s argument, “It’s hard to overstate how moronic such a claim is.”

Moreover, Dr. Iorg’s argument opposes Jesus’ claim that the persecution of one’s faith is a sign of blessing. Jesus says: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Rev. 5:11-12).” Though no Christian should long for persecution, every Christian should recognize that all forms of persecution (even lawsuits) are not something to be avoided through doctrinal compromise but welcomed as a signs of saving faith.  To quote Psalm 119:51: “The insolent utterly deride me, but I do not turn away from your law.”

Secondly and more importantly, Dr. Iorg’s claim proves theologically erroneous and destructive. Denominations and churches that base their doctrine upon the approval of their secular culture will increasingly find themselves at odds with the totality of Scripture. The culture surrounding the SBC that has turned some SBC churches against the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will not retreat once the SBC welcomes women into their pulpits. The culture will in short order pressure SBC churches to abandon their commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, the doctrine that marriage is limited to men and women, and any other doctrine the culture deems problematic. Once a denomination begins down the slippery slope of cultural appeasement, it will be almost impossible to break its fall.

Instead of listening to the messengers whose impulse for biblical fidelity led them to bring the Law/Sanchez Amendment to the floor for a vote, Dr. Iorg opposed them and opposed them in such a way that he placed himself not only at odds with messengers but with the Scriptures. 

In the end, the Law/Sanchez Amendment fell short of the super majority (66%) needed to pass. Only 60% of the messengers voted for it. Though the influence of Dr. Iorg’s two-and-a-half-minute speech upon the outcome of the vote was ultimately unmeasurable, I still believe it influenced the vote. Dr. Iorg won the day, and the majority of messengers lost. It was the worst of times.

And The Next Time?

Though I and many other biblically minded Southern Baptist mourn the outcome of the Law/Sanchez Amendment vote, I do not believe the 2025 Convention marks the end of the SBC or even the beginning of its end. In short, I am still bullish on the SBC’s future.

As long as the conservatives keep their 60% majority, they can control the SBC presidency and the appointments to the various SBC boards, including the Executive Committee. Though the cleansing of the SBC’s roles (so to speak) will take time, the conservatives can still stop and eventually repeal the advances of this next generation of moderates and liberals who champion numbers and cultural ideologies instead of the more common errors of traditional theological liberalism.

Now is not the time for conservatives and reform mined Baptist to retreat.  Now is the time to for us to rally around men such as Dr. Lambert, Dr. Leeman, Dr. Burke, Dr. Mohler and Dr. Allen as they fight to keep the SBC moored to the Scriptures. In other words, now is the time to book our flights to 2026 convention in Orlando.