As the Palisades and Eaton fires burned in California over the last few weeks, upwards of 12,000 structures were consumed, including schools, businesses, churches and homes. Among those impacted were celebrities such as Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins who lost their private houses to the fires. The cost of the damage is estimated to be in the billions, and twenty-eight lives have been confirmed lost to the flames.
Commentators have provided a wealth of opinions on what they think caused the devastation. However, one of the most striking responses has come from within the Christian community. It has been argued by some that the fires are due to the sins of the Hollywood elite, and that the Lord brought these fires to the area to discipline the people and punish them for their wickedness. As an example: An entire neighborhood was wiped out except for one house, which was reported to be the home of a devout Catholic. A conclusion was drawn that his house was spared due to the owner’s faithfulness, while the surrounding homes were destroyed because of the people’s wickedness. The wicked deserved what happened.
There are several problems with this view. First, when Hurricane Helene tore through the southeastern region of the US late last year, thoughts and prayers, not judgment and ridicule, were routinely offered up by Christian pundits. If Christians who make judgments about the California situation are to be consistent, then all natural disasters should be seen as a manifestation of the Lord’s displeasure. We should treat California and North Carolina the same.
Second, in order to be consistent, we would have to think that if the fires imply the Lord’s displeasure, then the prosperity these Hollywood elites have enjoyed throughout the years implied the Lord’s approval. If this view were applied consistently, every red carpet and million– dollar film that these wicked and evil Californians enjoyed would have been seen as an indication that the Lord was pleased with them. Of course, this is illogical. In light of these issues, I would like to offer a different perspective by looking at an OT example.
In Isa 45:1-8, the prophet predicts the coming of Cyrus, king of Persia. In 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the Babylonians (Daniel 5). This was a significant event for the nation of Judah, as the people had been held captive by the Babylonians for seventy years. After conquering Babylon (Ezra 1), the Persian king made a decree, released the Jews, and allowed them to return the land and rebuild the temple. All of this was predicted by Isaiah, roughly 150 years earlier.
The prophet describes Cyrus as the Lord’s anointed one, meaning that He had elected him to deliver the exiles out of Babylon (v 13). This term is usually attributed to the Lord’s prophets, kings (1 Sam 16:6), and even the Messiah. It is noteworthy that it is applied to a pagan Gentile. In addition to giving Cyrus this divine assignment, the Lord also promises to prosper the Persian king. One might say that He rolls out the red carpet for Cyrus. The Lord promises to hold his right hand (v 1). The Lord describes how He will subdue the nations––which would include Babylon––before him (v 2). In addition, Cyrus would benefit from the spoils of war (v 3). In short, Cyrus would reap fame, power, and riches from the Lord.
According to the prosperity view, the Lord must have been pleased with Cyrus, seeing him as a godly man. But that is not why the Lord prospered the Persian king. Isaiah writes in verse 4:
For Jacob My servant’s sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
The Lord blessed Cyrus for the sake of Judah, not because Cyrus was a faithful believer. It had nothing to do with Cyrus being a wicked or a good man. Cyrus didn’t even know the Lord. The Persian king was an unbeliever. The Lord can and does prosper unbelievers in order to fulfill His plans. In this case, His plans involved Judah. In short, the Lord’s pleasure with an individual is not necessarily made evident by his prosperity, nor is His displeasure revealed in suffering (Job 1:8; Matt 5:3, 10-11; Jas 1:2-4).
Nations (or states) fall on hard times. It can be through natural disasters or through the rise and fall of kings and world leaders. It can be hard to determine why the winds of change happen, but Cyrus does provide a few principles we can apply. First, God can choose whom He wishes to prosper, including unbelievers (Is 45:9-13). Second, to claim that God is displeased with a city or person because they are suffering or that He is pleased with them because they prosper, is a subjective metric. It should be avoided. Third, whether in times of hardship or prosperity, the Lord is in control, and the believer can take comfort in knowing He is guiding mankind’s history toward His purposes.
