Habakkuk 1.13, your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and you cannot look on wickedness with favor. Why do you look with favor on those who deal treacherously? Why are you silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous? than they. Let us pray and ask for the Lord's blessing. Father, indeed, probably all of us here at one time or another have perhaps prayed or asked such a question themselves, Lord. If you are so pure as you cannot even look upon evil, how is it that we see evil perhaps even prospering at times, Father. Would you help us, Lord, on the one hand to be able to think rightly, but also to be able to believe rightly about these things as we live in a world that is full of evil and suffering, Lord. Would you bless our time now in the name of Christ? Amen. Well, brothers and sisters, we're continuing in chapter three of God's decree. Last week we summarized briefly several overlapping distinctions concerning the will of God. We compared how they were similar, how they were different, what strengths and weaknesses these various distinctions had. For example, we saw that theologians often refer to the will of God proper, His decree, as either, quote, the secret will. the Decretive Will, the Will of Good Pleasure, or even the Will Eudokia. At the same time, they often speak of God's will, not properly speaking in the sense of the decree, but rather His will for our conduct, how we ought to live. This is either the Revealed Will, the Perceptive Will, the Will of the Sign, at least partially, and then lastly, the Will Eucharistia. all of these are more or less getting at the same thing. And I shared them with you, hopefully not to muddy the waters, but so as you are reading and you see different theologians use different distinctions, or sometimes even like mix and match these distinctions, you can have a grasp for what they are getting at. So hopefully we can demystify that a bit. Well, once we finish that, we then began a more practical discussion, which I will not rehearse here, other than to say the fact that God revealed his will for how he would have us live means that there is a duty for us to learn his will. And furthermore, this is not just a bare head knowledge, but a growing in the powers of our discernment between good and evil, as well as the submitting of our will to the Lord in every aspect of our lives. Well, today, what I'd like us to do is, as a starting point, but only a starting point, I promise, is to go back to the distinction between the will of good pleasure and the will of the sign, and to deal with the last two signs that we have not yet dealt with. If you remember, I said that historically there are five signs of the will. Many Protestants argue that really there are more than just five, and I would agree that that's true, but historically there are five, namely precept, prohibition, counsel, permission, and operation. Now up to this point, we've really only dealt with the first three, and that's because the last two are of a very different nature. They're very much in kind of a category of their own. In fact, this is kind of a common criticism of all these being put together under just the will of the sign, and not only by Protestants, but it seems that even in the medieval period, perhaps there was some criticism, at least enough that Thomas Aquinas felt he needed to argue for the latter two remaining with the first three. However, in a certain sense, this criticism is understandable. As I said last week in an answer to Vishal's question, one of the issues with the will of the sign as a category is that it kind of just becomes a grab bag for everything that is not the decree when some of those other things might be better served with other distinctions. All that to say, I don't think we need to get rid of the distinction. It has a rich pedigree in church history, even among Protestants, but we just should acknowledge that it, like many of these distinctions, has strengths and weaknesses. Getting back to the point, though, let us consider the last two signs of the will, and then we're really only going to deal with one. That's why we're using this as a springboard. The last two signs of the will are permission and operation. permission and operation. Remember that all of these signs of the will are meant to account for various ways that the Scriptures speak of the will of God, though not speaking properly about the decree. So the Scriptures may call a command the will of God for us in terms of our conduct, though according to His decree, we might not fulfill that command. And so we say this is a will, a sign of the will. Similarly, scripture sometimes speaks of God as decreeing, even perhaps willing at times, in a sense, evil. Yet we are to understand that, strictly speaking, God does not and cannot even will evil, but that these passages refer to his permission. Similarly, the last sign, operation, refers not to the decree itself, but to the execution or the fulfillment of God's decree in His providence, so that something that occurs in time and space can be said to be the will of God, though properly speaking, God's will is an eternal act. This operation or execution of the eternal will can be called God's will. And indeed, sometimes reformed theologians distinguish between the will of God in the decree and the will of God in providence, or as they would sometimes call it, the will of the future and the will of the present. The will of the future refers to what God eternally wills that will take place in the future But the will of the present is God's fulfillment of that eternal decree. Richard Muller explains that these are essentially differences in perspective. From the perspective of the divine essence, which is to say of the eternal God who performs His works, all of God's acts are eternal. Yet from the perspective of their effects and objects, God's acts are temporal. Some are past, some present, some future. Thus, some distinction can and must be made between the eternal decree of God concerning all things and events in their temporal order and the will of God concerning actual effects. Most simply, though, the way we speak of this, the way that our confession speaks of this, is the difference between God's decree and providence. God's decree is what He eternally wills, and providence is how He executes that or brings it about. But here, let's go back to the fourth sign, permission, and have a longer discussion about it. Firstly, because this is where our confession goes next in paragraph one, but also because it is a very important discussion, namely the will of God and what we often call the problem of evil or theodicy. This topic is important for many reasons, brothers and sisters. On the one hand, this is simply the case from the fact that evil can and does befall Christians in this fallen world. Just because you have placed your faith in Christ does not mean that you are exempt from suffering. I have a very distinct memory as a child. Probably around the age of six or seven or so, I was not a believer at the time, but I remember whenever anything would scare me, either a scary movie, aliens, there's a movie, Fire in the Sky, terrified me when I was a little kid, okay, or anything like that, I would think of God, and this would immediately give me a great sense of peace and ease about my fears. Not that I had a saving faith in God yet, but just general thoughts about the goodness of God and the fact that He was in control of the world gave me a great sense of peace. And then in church one day, I learned the story of Job. And while I did not yet make the connection right away, sometime after that, I remember distinctly I was playing hide and go seek at night outside with my friends, okay? We were playing at night and I was probably thinking about the chupacabra or something like that. I grew up with all these Mexican kids who would tell you about the chupacabra at night. And I remember hiding alone at night outside and being afraid that I was by myself However, then I began to be comforted again by the thought of God and His goodness and His control over all things as previously, but then it hit me and I made the connection with the story of Job. God does allow evil and suffering to befall His creatures, even His own people, even the righteous. So why should I be exempt from that? I distinctly remember where I was. I was hiding behind an electrical utility box, and I remember the thought and the fear that that produced in me, evil might even befall me. And so just because we are Christians, and so many of you here, all of you in one way or another can attest to this, this does not exempt us from evil befalling us. On the other hand, this topic is important because we need to know how to think rightly, how to believe rightly, how to read scripture rightly, how to counsel others rightly, because evil does befall others as well. Furthermore, from the perspective of apologetics, either in terms of reaching unbelievers with the gospel or defending the faith, particularly as those who are reformed and therefore often falsely accused of making God the author of sin because of our doctrine of sovereignty, we need to know then at least perhaps a simple answer we can give, as Peter says, to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you. I think especially unbelievers, though I suppose believers could do this, but I think especially of several instances where unbelievers in suffering either accuse God of evil or assert that God's existence is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. And somehow they will point, they will put it point blank to a Christian. And it can be very hard to give a good answer in that case. For example, I know a woman, a dear friend, who lost her son almost 20 years ago in combat in Iraq. And my family went to go visit her and her family the next day, and I believe the first thing that she said to my mother, knowing that my mother was a Christian, was, was this the will of God? I think of a certain scene in the movie, The Hiding Place. Perhaps you've never seen it. I have enjoyed it. I don't know about Corrie Ten Boom's theology, so if she's really off, you'll have to pardon me. I've been encouraged by the movie, right? She's Dutch, but that doesn't necessarily make you Reformed. But anyway, The Hiding Place is based... Are you gonna say she was Dutch Reformed? Dutch reformed in the 20th century could mean a lot of things, though, so we'll see. It could mean a lot of things. No, I'm just kidding. Her family hid Jews during the Holocaust, and she, with her family, were caught and arrested and sent to concentration camps. And in the end, only Corey survived. But the problem of evil is stated several times throughout the movie, which is understandable. It's about the Holocaust. There's this particular scene though, and I don't know if this is in the book. I searched for it in the book. It's not there that I could find. It may be from another source, or it may have been creative liberty. But in this scene, Corrie and her sister Betsy are in their absolutely deplorable, filthy barracks where they live in one of these camps, and they are encouraging other women to trust in the Lord. They actually read a passage about the will of God. First Thessalonians 5, 16 through 18, rejoice always, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. I know as a pastor, that is a hard thing to give to people sometimes. I remember one time a woman at a church a long time ago was very heavy with pregnancy. She was like visibly uncomfortable and I even exhorted her, in all things give thanks, right? Imagine exhorting others in a concentration camp to that verse. Rejoice always, even in a concentration camp, pray without ceasing. In everything, even your slave labor, give thanks, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. But as Corrie and Betsy are encouraging others, a woman in another bunk chimes in and says, to the mindless, the words are so comforting, but in this place, it is a mockery. Corrie chimes in and says, God didn't make this place, men did. Okay, maybe we could say that in a sense perhaps, but the woman will not let her off so easily. She says, but he has power. Certainly he could stop them, unless of course he is a sadist, he enjoys our suffering. Corrie's sister Betsy replies, oh no, he is love, all love. To which the woman says, then he is impotent. You can't have it both ways, my dear. Betsy gives some kind of an answer about how they still will trust the Lord even in such a place. The lady will not accept this, and she presses on. She has bandages around her hand, which she begins to unravel. And as she does, she says, I am Maria Wrocek, first violinist of the Warsaw Symphony Orchestra. And then she holds up her hands and fingers, which have clearly been smashed by the Germans and destroyed. And she says, did your God will this? At that, Betsy is somewhat stunned. Corrie speaks up and says, we cannot answer. All I can say is that the same God that you're accusing came and lived in the midst of our world, and He was beaten and mocked and died on a cross, and He did it for love. Not a terribly bad answer, not a terribly great answer, whatever. Then the woman says, then why do you think that your God of love sent you here? To which Betsy says, and this is a hardcore answer, way to go, to obey Him. If you know Him, you don't have to know why. Now, I share that with you, not because their answers are terribly great or terribly bad, but because that is often how it can be put to Christians. Was this the will of God? Furthermore, as is often the case, as in the movie, other prisoners are all watching and listening to the debate. Most are not Christians, but neither are they atheists. Rather, they are watching to see what the Christian will say, and I have often found this to be the case too. It's true that we do not want to cast our pearls before swine, but it is often the case that others are listening as well, and it is good to give a good answer about these things. How then should we handle them when perhaps we ourselves are struggling or when others ask them of us? Well, the first thing I would like us to do before solving the problem is perhaps to exacerbate the problem and make it even worse if we can. And as we do so, address some answers that you should not give to solve the problem. I want to focus on three truths, and really the goal is to hold all of these three truths together and not try to cancel out one that we might hold the other two. That's a good way to get in trouble theologically. You see this so often in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity or Christology. So often errors and heresies arise because men are perhaps not trying to deny truths but to defend them. And yet the way that they defend them is to sacrifice one for the other. Either the oneness for the threeness or the deity of Christ for his humanity. Cancelling out one of those to sustain the other. regardless of your intentions, is a great way to be in theological error. And so we must hold these truths, even with all of their apparent tension. Well, the first of these truths is, of course, the goodness of God. The goodness of God, His holiness and utter purity. God is not just good, He is goodness itself. You know, we sometimes say, and this is the responsive part of the class, God is good all the time. God is good. We could even though say God is goodness all the time, God is goodness. God is goodness itself. God is the highest and the supreme good, the summum bonum, and there is absolutely no evil in God whatsoever, may it never be. If you have your confession of faith, look at chapter 3, paragraph 1. Chapter 3, paragraph 1. I'm going to read through from the beginning, but then we'll go farther than we've gone before. It says, God hath decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably all things whatsoever come to pass, yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein. The scriptures are explicit and emphatic on this point, brothers and sisters. James 1, 13 through 15, let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone, but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. 1 John 1.5, this is the message we have heard from Him and announced to you that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. Psalm 24, 3-4, who may ascend into the hill of the Lord and who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood. Or as we read in our opening scripture reading, Habakkuk 1.13, Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and you cannot look on wickedness with favor. God is good, full stop. However, here, let us state this even more starkly. Not only is God entirely good, and not only can He not be tempted to evil, as James says, but to go even further, I would say that God, properly speaking, cannot will evil. Remember, He is Himself goodness, and His goodness is the proper object of His will, as we have seen. His will can only will good. And so God does not and cannot even will evil, nor that it should be or be done. Thomas Aquinas states this very strongly. Some have said that although God does not will evil, yet He wills that evil should be or be done. Because although evil is not good, yet it is good that evil should be or be done. This, they said, because things evil in themselves are ordered to some good. And this order, they thought, was expressed in the words that evil should be or be done. This, however, is not correct since evil is not itself ordered to good. Furthermore, here we should clarify what we mean by evil and perhaps this will bring it into sharper view. By evil we mean a privation or a lack of the good. This is not to say that evil does not exist, it surely does, but rather that it exists only as a privation of the good. It is not its own thing apart from the good, as though good were an apple and evil were an orange. Rather, goodness is the apple and evil is the chunk bitten out of the apple. Augustine explains it this way. What after all, he says, is anything we call evil except the privation of good? In animals, for instance, sickness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health. When a cure is affected, the evils which were present, i.e. the sickness and the wounds, do not retreat and go elsewhere. Rather, they simply do not exist anymore. For such evil is not a substance. The wound or the disease is a defect of the bodily substance, which as a substance is good. Evil then is a privation of that good, which is called health. Thus, whatever defects there are in the soul are privations of a natural good. When a cure takes place, they are not transferred elsewhere, but since they are no longer present in the state of health, they no longer exist at all. Perhaps an analogy we could give is to say that evil is not like a virus, which comes as some sort of outside organism, which enters and therefore kills the cell. Rather, it is more like cancer. It is a defect within the genetic code of the cell itself. And so in this sense, evil always exists in a good, but as a privation of it. Furthermore, evil actions also have something lacking in them. Think of our definition of sin. It's the most common definition of sin. Lawlessness, anomia in Greek, so that sinful actions are sinful because there is something in them that is lacking or deformed. Stephen Sharnock, in his Essence and Attributes of God, explains it this way, when we say that such an action is sinful, the action is the subject and the sinfulness of the action is that which adheres to it. The action is not the sinfulness nor the sinfulness the action, they are distinguished as a body part and a disease in the body part, the arm and the palsy in it. The arm is not the palsy, nor is the palsy the arm, but the palsy is a disease that cleaves to the arm. So sinfulness is a deformity that cleaves to an action. It is a privation of some perfection the action ought morally to have. Now we'll get into that a bit more when we get into the idea of secondary causes and how God is the first cause of all things, even evil actions can be that, and yet does not incur any guilt to himself. But for now, just notice that evil is a privation of the good, so much so that it always exists in a good. To summarize, however, this first point, God is goodness itself. so much so that he does not and cannot even will evil to be or be done." The second truth that we must hold equally with the first is that God is absolutely sovereign. And although He is by no means the author of sin, and although He cannot will evil as we just said, yet we must also hold that His decree and providence do extend to evil and sinful actions. For example, turn with me to chapter five of your confession of faith on providence. Chapter five. Paragraph four on Providence. It explains, his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall and all other sinful actions, both of angels and men. In other words, when we conceive of the decree of God, it is not as though evil and evil actions are outside of God's decree. Some folks speak about it that way. That is their way of solving the problem of evil, that God does not really decree evil. Maybe He allows it, but with what our confession calls a bare permission, or we might say an unwilling permission, so that it's there, but it's not something He ever intended. I remember watching an evangelistic short film years and years ago called The Bridge. I think it was either in Romanian or Hungarian. Has anyone ever seen it? Maybe you're like, I don't. You've seen it? Look at that. Look at you. All right. It's the story of this father and the son that he loves. The father operates a drawbridge so that when trains come by, he puts it down and the trains can safely pass over. It happens, one day his son is playing under the bridge, really down where the gears are, and then the father hears a train coming. Maybe it wasn't scheduled, I don't remember why, but the father, understandably, is frantically looking for and calling for his son, but he can't find him. He knows that if the bridge goes down, it will crush his son. And yet if the bridge does not go down, it will crush all the lives on the train. And so finally, in agony between these two choices, he puts the bridge down, knowing that it crushes the son so that he might save the people on the train. And as I recall, the father is sobbing hysterically, which is understandable if this were not an analogy of God, okay? We're not saying it's like that wouldn't happen, right? But the point of all this is that man is living in his sin, though the father has crushed the son to death to save them. The father did crush the son, but this was not something that came and interrupted his plan, nor was it something outside of his control that put God into an emotional tailspin. Rather the crucifixion was according to Peter in Acts 2 according to quote the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. This option then of saying that God permits evil but unwillingly is to sacrifice the sovereignty of God for His goodness. Scripture, however, is clear, not only that as our confession states, whatsoever comes to pass is decreed by God from eternity, but also that even the sinful actions of men are part of that decree with particular examples of this. God says to Moses, I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in the land. Or we read of the Canaanite kings that there was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites. They took them all in battle for it was of the Lord to harden their hearts to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them just as the Lord had commanded Moses. Or also we read a few weeks ago that the sons of Eli would not listen to the voice of their father. The Lord desired to put them to death. Furthermore, if evil took place apart from the will of God, I see no reason why Paul's hypothetical debater would say in Romans 9, why does he still find fault for who resists his will? Or at least I would ask Paul to clarify that evil is by a bare permission that God does not will. He doesn't. He rebukes the man. On the contrary, who are you, oh man, who answers back to God, the thing molded, will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this, will it? So we ought not, brothers and sisters, and biblically cannot, sacrifice the sovereignty of God for the goodness of God, because these are not opposed to one another. And even though God does not will evil, His will cannot be taken entirely out of the equation, since nothing comes to pass apart from His will. Now, we'll see how that can be later, but just keep that in mind. The last truth that we need to hold is that evil does indeed exist. I don't know that this point needs to really be argued, I suppose, unless, I don't know, maybe it was with some kind of Eastern mysticism or something. I take it to be obvious, evil exists. Really, no one ever questions this point, but rather, because of this point, they question the other two. And though we hold that evil is a privation of the good, It does not mean that it is not actually in the world. That would be a mockering of sufferings. How then do we hold all three of these together? God's purity and goodness, that He only wills the good, Psalm 145, 17, the Lord is righteous in all His ways and kind in all His deeds. His sovereignty and decree of all things, or that in some sense, though He does not will evil, yet nothing comes to pass apart from His will. And then lastly, that there is evil in the world. Well, here, while we do not say that God wills evil, we say that He permits it. And if you ask what is meant by permission, we could say it is His non-impeding of evil, His non-prevention of it. And yet, we must be clear that even this non-impeding is willed. Therefore, as the confession says, it is not a bare permission. It is not a bare non-impeding, but as it is sometimes called, an effective permission or a willing permission. In other words, God does not merely permit, but he wills to permit. This is why I said you cannot entirely take the will out of the equation. For example, listen to what Peter Martyr says. He says, there must be something else besides permission if we will properly satisfy those places of Scripture which are objected. For those which say that God doth only permit, they cannot altogether exclude His will. because he permits the same either willingly or else unwillingly. Unwillingly, I am assured, he doth not, because none may compel him. It follows, therefore, that he doth willingly permit those things to be done. I would say we see both of these scriptures or both of these elements in our confession of faith. The positive willing of God as well as the negative non-impeding of His permission. Turn with me, for example, to chapter 6 of the Confession of the Fall. Chapter 6. Paragraph 1. It says, although God created man upright and perfect and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, Yet he, Adam, did not long abide in this honor, Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit." So it's talking about the fall of Adam. It continues, which God was pleased? According to His wise and holy counsel, so His decree and His will in a positive sense, it says God was pleased. And yet, what was He pleased to do? Well, it continues, to permit. To not impede the sin of Adam. God willed to permit Adam's sin, and then it closes it out by saying, having purposed to order it to His own glory. So notice, you have both this positive aspect of God's willing and yet the negative or non-impeding of His permission. By ordering things this way, brothers and sisters, we are not only able to do justice to Scripture, but theologically to preserve God's goodness on the one hand, as well as His sovereignty and omnipotence on the other. Listen to how Stephen Sharnock expresses this in his famous book, The Essence and Attributes of God. He argues that we need both and we can't cut one out to balance the other out. It's rather long, but it's good. He says, God doth not properly will sin, but he wills not to hinder it. Sin entered into the world, either God willing the permission of it or not willing the permission of it. The latter cannot be said, for then the creature is more powerful than God and can do that which God will not permit. God can, if He pleased, banish all sin in a moment out of the world. He could have prevented the rebellion of the angels and the fall of man. He might, by His grace, have stepped in in the first moment and made a special impression upon them of the happiness they already possessed and the misery they would incur by their wicked attempt He could as well have prevented the sin of fallen angels and confirmed them in grace like those angels that continued in their happy state. He might have appeared to man and informed him of his design and made secret impressions upon his heart since he was acquainted with every avenue of his will. God could have kept all sin out of the world as well as all creatures from breathing in it. He was just as able to bar sin forever out of the world. It's not a matter of His omnipotence. He said, to say God doth will sin as He doth other things is to deny His holiness. To say sin entered without anything of His will is to deny His omnipotence. If He did necessitate Adam to fall, what shall we think of His purity? If Adam did fall without any concern of God's will in it, what shall we say of His sovereignty? The one taints His holiness and the other clips His power. The one taints His holiness and the other clips His power. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we hold both. Nothing comes to pass apart from the will of God, and yet evil is never the direct object of God's will, rather He wills to permit it. Furthermore, lastly, as an encouragement, we must always remember and take heart that God wills to permit sin and evil for good. This is how paragraph one of chapter six ends, or at least that section. It says, which God was pleased according to His wise and holy counsel to permit, having purpose to order it to His own glory. Augustine writes, The Almighty God, who even as the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among his works if he were not so omnipotent and good that he can bring good even out of evil. Therefore, Joseph can say to his brothers, as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive. God permits evil in sin that he might display his manifold goodness and infinite perfections. On the one hand, He allowed Adam to fall that He might redeem the fallen sons and daughters of Adam and therefore display His glorious grace. Stephen Sharnock says, though the goodness of God would have appeared in the preservation of the world as well as it did in the creation of it, yet His mercy could not have appeared without the entrance of sin because the object of mercy is a miserable creature. But man could not be miserable as long as he remained innocent. The rain of sin opened a door for the rain and triumph of grace. Without it, the bowels of mercy had never sounded, and the ravishing music of divine grace could never have been heard by the creature." On the other hand, God allowed Adam to fall that He might also display His perfect justice in punishing the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. Think about that, brothers and sisters. How awesome is your God? that the very thing which unbelievers use to accuse God of injustice, namely His permission of evil, will ultimately serve to demonstrate His pure holiness, goodness, and justice. Furthermore, take heart, brothers and sisters, that in this life, though there are times when we do see the wicked not yet punished, God will eventually bring about His good justice upon them. This is often one of the contexts in scripture and indeed life where I find that saints struggle the most with evil. Namely that God doesn't always right away punish evil. He permits it. And in fact, sometimes it seems to prosper for a time while the righteous are the exact opposite. They are persecuted. And when this goes on for a long period of time, many saints in scripture have struggled with this. I think of Psalm 73, a psalm as powerful as it is honest about evil and struggling with evil. It says, a psalm of Asaph, surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart. Notice it starts with an affirmation of God's goodness, right? He's already come through the end of the storm. So he's saying, I affirmed this in the beginning. Verse two though, but as for me, my feet came close to stumbling. My steps had almost slipped, for I was envious of the arrogant as I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat. They are not troubled as other men, nor are they plagued like mankind. Therefore, pride is their necklace. The garment of violence covers them. Their eyes bulge from fatness. The imagination of their heart runs riot. They mock and wickedly speak of oppression. They speak from on high. They have set their mouths against the heaven, and their tongue parades through the earth. Therefore His people return to this place, and waters of abundance are drunk by them. They say, How does God know? Is there knowledge with the Most High? Behold, these are the wicked, always at ease. They have increased in wealth. But then in light of this, he says, at the end of that time, he thought to himself, verse 13, surely in vain I have kept my heart pure and washed my hands in innocence. For I have been stricken all day long and chastened every morning. And verse 16, when I pondered to understand this, it was troublesome in my sight. Let me say, Christians, that it is not just rabid atheists who struggle with the problem of evil, but genuine, tender, and sincere saints who are suffering. I would encourage you when you speak with people, you should always be humble, but when you speak with a brother or sister who is suffering or struggling with the problem of evil, to be gentle to them. Do not be like Job's friends. Be gentle. They often say things like, surely in vain I have kept my heart pure and washed my hands in innocence. I have known sweet Christians who under such a state have said such things, and I myself have said things like that that start to border kind of not on blasphemy, but kind of you're testing the Lord. Even so, be gentle with them. Encourage them that they will not always feel this way and that the Lord is good. and remind them that although evil is prospering, yet this is only the case because God has willingly permitted it for a greater good, and that one day He will bring evil to justice. This is the meditation that helps Asaph. He says in verse 16, when I pondered to understand this, it was troublesome in my sight until I came to the sanctuary of God. Then I perceived their end. Surely you have set them in slippery places. You cast them down to destruction." In light of this, then, he reflects on his previous thoughts and behavior. He says, when my heart was embittered and I was pierced within, I was senseless and ignorant. I was like a beast before you. Nevertheless, I am continually with you. You have taken hold of my right hand. And he closes with the goodness of God as he began. For behold, those who are far from you will perish. You have destroyed all those who are unfaithful to you. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good. I have made the Lord my refuge, that I may tell of all your works." He starts with saying, surely God is good to Israel, and he ends with saying, the nearness of God is my good. Remember, brothers and sisters, that God doesn't just turn evil to His good in the sense of demonstrating either His grace or justice, but also in turning all evils that the elect experience to their good as well. Therefore, Paul can encourage the saints in Rome, and we know that God causes all things to work together for good. to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose, all things, brothers and sisters, evil even included, the sins of others, even your own sins, God shall turn to good. We saw that some of our brothers and sisters solve the problem of evil by ascribing to God a kind of unwilling permission. I find that a greater problem than it solves. How terrifying would it be to know that God indeed loves you and He is your Father, but some things are out of His control. Rather, I prefer the comfort given by the Heidelberg Catechism that says that without the will of my Heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head. Yea, all things must be subservient to my salvation. Take comfort therefore in the goodness and the wise sovereignty of God and in his wise permission of evil. This is often ascribed to God when the topic of evil is discussed because so often we raise these questions like deep philosophers. We question the Lord's wisdom thinking we are wiser, better than he is, more holy or good. But God's decree is holy and perfect just as He is. Trust in the Lord. And if anyone asks you, was this the will of God? I pray you're not in such a situation. It also might not be the case to be like, well, look, God permits, but He wills to... It's just probably not in the moment. Just give Him a hug and say, I love you and God is good or something like that. Nevertheless, we can affirm God is absolutely good, yet absolutely sovereign, and these things need not cancel one another out, because that's how God has revealed Himself. It is not to us to determine and split all the hairs, but to submit to Holy Scripture and God's revelation.