W W
W W World Wide Web
Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER 4
Love and
Predestination:
It is as Stated and
Not Another Thing!
We come now
to consideration of the Biblical presentation of the love of the living God,
with special focus on its nature as biblically revealed, so that the realities
of its presentation may be seen in the perfection of the harmony of the whole,
intact, unmolested, unconfined by man.
The love of
God is inexhaustible, insurmountable, untruncatable! The devices of some to
curtail it, with whatever good intentions, are illegitimate, and so far from
solving any problems, merely distort both the issues and the text of the Bible,
so producing confusion. The word of God needs no help from man, but speaks for
itself. It is this fact that WHEN, and ONLY WHEN you treat it so, are all
problems resolved, which is one of the cardinal attestations of its source! It
is immutable not only in terms of the honour of not substituting our puny words
for His, but in the sense that if you do, it is like a child playing with the
internals of a Concorde aircraft, directing some crazy mechanic to make changes
which appeal. Obviously, the thing would not and could not then fly!
For all details in any excerpt, please consult the original, if any
hyperlink here should happen to be inoperative, though this should be rather
exceptional. Here it is the thrust of the passage which is concerned; in the
original one may find the finesse aspects and broader context.
A. EXCERPT from
SMR Appendix B.
APPENDIX B
ADDENDUM ON WILL ...
(See with this Chapter 6
below, D 1,
esp. *1
at p. 210)
In what way, if any, does will relate to
salvation ?
Whilst
considering these matters, it might be opportune now to ponder a point on will,
initially considering an aspect as raised by Dr Clark in his Religion,
Reason and Revelation. While this aspect is not essential to our treatment
of predestination and freewill, in that a nexus of Scriptures establishes the
criteria, and this is but one contributor: it is good to be thorough, and we
will look at it now. It will then be used as an introduction, a more extensive
treatment of the apologetics of will, in this work. Taking the words of Jesus
in Matthew 23:37 (so often misused that it is most understandable they should
be looked at again by Dr Clark in his work), he gives nevertheless a somewhat
extreme view of them. The words are:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem you who kill the
prophets and stone those who are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered
your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and
you would not!
This topic, primary in the predestination thesis, is yet relevant
in apologetics, in that my PREDESTINATION AND FREEWILL exhibits that only in
Scripture is there base for such a perfect harmony and comprehensibility -
though we know only in part, the part is clear - relative to freedom and
predestination. This is one of the many aspects of scripture which
verify its divine origin. To this side of things, then, we will shortly turn;
but in the meantime, our concern is with that phase of Scripture of which the
above cited text is one representative. We will then consider the special
function of will at this time, with initial reference to Matthew 23:37.
MATTHEW 23:37 AND THE WILL
Dr Clark would urge that it is to Jerusalem that the apostrophe or exhortation
is addressed, whereas it is to the children of the same that the rebuke
comes- "ye would not". Parents are censured, children are
desired. It is not, he considers, a case of Jesus expressing a desire for a
person or group of persons, in terms of coming to Him, persons who in fact did
not do so.
Yet
does this device in fact avoid the relevance of the will in this scripture? We
shall show that this is far from being the case. To be sure, Arminians
might make the will not merely relevant to God but operable by unconverted man,
in terms of conversion; they might well take this in a way grossly contrary to
Romans 9:16 and similar words in scripture; but are we to go further and make
this Scripture to be quite apart, even from reference to the will, in the focus
of salvation ?
That
is the proposition. How does it fare ? First, let us note that the term "daughter"
of Jerusalem is used as a synonym for
Jerusalem. This is usage; we can understand
it- there are generations always coming on, and the old city is the host to
them as they pass in, on and through. But the main point is simply that this IS
usage. The term does not differentiate re 'Jerusalem' but specifies the inhabitants. We
find it in Isaiah 37:22:
This is the word which the Lord hath spoken
concerning him: The virgin, the daughter of Zion, has despised you, and laughed you
to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you.
This personification is not difficult to comprehend. There
is no possible question that the next generation are in view; for here is a
strong, majestic woman tossing her dignified head in scorn at the rapacious
invader, summing up the city's courage and assurance, in so doing. The emotions
are very definitely adult in their setting and scope, and the base is
undoubtedly not sectional, but representative of Jerusalem in its strongest response. As to
that "daughter" of Jerusalem, personifying the city, her
maturity is seen in the assurance, poise and emotion of her behaviour; and the
literary device is one which in context displays what all Jerusalem is to
muster in response to the tyrant threatening the existence of all. We are not,
I say, in any doubt about this.
The
designation"children
... of" is of course extremely common, and applies not only in the
case of Jerusalem, or indeed of Israel, but with great scope. In Jeremiah,
this designation occurs dozens of times - for example, in 2:16, 2:30, 3:14, 3:22, 6:1, 17:19 - but the case would be too
monotonous to exhibit further. Moreover, these cases invite some thought.
Take
17:19 - "Thus saith the Lord unto me, Go and stand in the
gate of the children of the people, by which the kings of Judah come..." There is here designation in terms
of children; yet it is a most sober and undifferentiated message as to age level;
unless indeed it is so maximally adult as to have almost no consideration for
literal children as such, at all! These rather are that current
generation who is 'spawned', as it were, in the old city. The term was almost ubiquitous in
Exodus, where the "children of Israel" is a phrase signifying the nation
as a whole, not once but dozens and dozens of times. In Numbers 7:72, we even
see it referring to Asher as follows: "On the eleventh day Pagiel, the
son of Ochran, prince of the children of Asher".
The
usage and its connotations are exceptionally widespread biblically. Thus the
use of the child concept for the city or people is further amplified in
Jeremiah, where it appears in the 'daughter' feature, itself suggestive of the
'derivative' nature of any generation likewise. We find this in such verses as 4:11,31, 6:2,22, 8:21, 31:22, and the use of it for Egypt in 46:24... merely to select some
items of this multitudinous usage.
Turn back, O virgin of Israel, turn back to these your cities...
Be sure, in all this God is not addressing merely adolescent
delinquents, but His comments turn sharply to the pith of the race. Indeed, He
proceeds to tell this 'gadding about' daughter the famous prediction, "A
woman shall encompass a man" (Jeremiah 31:23). In 4:11, it is of
judgment to "this people and to Jerusalem", the Lord speaks, specifying later
in the immediate context the affliction for "the daughter of my
people". In 4:31 we see the "daughter of
Jerusalem' crying: "Woe is me now,
for my soul is weary because of murderers". God proceeds to tell "Jerusalem" to "wash thine heart from
wickedness that you may be saved" - Jeremiah 4:14.
"This is your wickedness," He says, "because it is
bitter, because it reaches to your heart" - Jeremiah 4:18.
Again,
"How shall I pardon you for this ?Your children have forsaken me, and
sworn by those who are not gods. When I had fed them to the full, then they
committed adultery and assembled themselves by harlots' houses. They were like
well-fed lusty stallions; every one neighed after his neighbour's wife"-
Jeremiah 5:7. In all this there is a certain... adult quality! There is no even
conceivable question to raise about the fact that the Jerusalem which is here
being rebuked is the enduring place of many generations, like a mother (cf.
Isaiah 66:8-9,12), a figure explicit in Isaiah, and that her current generation
is deemed 'children', so becoming the recipients of the curse that comes.
To
imagine a divergent figure when this is strong, frequent and normative,
logically apt and definitively precise is as ludicrous an invasion of the word
of God as is the effort to imagine some novel meaning for the 'children' of
Matthew 23:37. Far then from being a case of comparing the word of God with
the word of God precisely - it becomes even an abuse of the principle that the
children shall not (literally) be held accountable for the sins of their
parents (as defined in Ezekiel 18:20ff.), at some length. It is to this that
the avoidance of the expression of the Lord is forced! and that, it is in
double abuse of the privilege of interpretation. It is better to find what it
means (Repent or Perish Ch.1), than dispense with what it says.
But
now let us consider our next comparable item, contextual element in review.
"Return, you backsliding children," says the Lord in 3:22, "and I will heal your
backslidings." What preceded ? "A voice was heard on the
desolate heights, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel, for they have perverted their way,
and they have forgotten the Lord their God." The usage is precisely as it had
always been, relative to the "children of Israel" under the full sweep of divine
rebuke and entreaty, with the focus now heavily on the city about to be
destroyed, on it in particular.
"My people", says the Lord in 4:22, "are foolish. They have
not known me. They are silly children..." So the Lord defines the
matter from His divine perspective, quite incisively. Thus, after specifying, again, "everyone"
as being "given to covetousness", and that "everyone
deals falsely", God says, giving the reason: "FOR they have
healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly..." (8:10-11). Is it on the head of sinning
youth that God is putting the whole blame for the nation's ills ? Is the soul
that sins not responsible, but only is it the young, for all this ? To
ask, is to answer.
In
Ezekiel 18:3, as foreshadowed above, we find quite directly: "As
I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this
proverb in Israel." The proverb ? the one specifying
sour grapes eaten by fathers setting the teeth of children on edge. No!
"The soul that sins, it shall die!"
Now
we must note this: "Ye shall not have occasion to use it any
more." The case is Israel; hence if the view is, contrary to
usage, that the children were in Israel being so treated because of
their parents, it would be forbidden and that in God's name
(cf. Ezekiel 18:2-5).
And
that should suffice.
Another
point may be mentioned purely for completeness. John Gill, whom Gordon Clark
cites here, sought help from passages which cited 'fathers' as seniors and
representatives - as in "fathers and brethren" forms of
address; in distinction from usages referring to 'children' such as Matthew
12:27 and Isaiah 8:16 and 18. In the latter, there is a sense of discipleship
or subjection. This usage does occur, where the context gives ground. Thus where
an ecclesiastical assemblage is concerned, these being select and with
authority endued, their title of reference relates to their then current
function in Assembly. The other usage refers indeed to non-authoritarian role;
and in this case, there is the implicit reference to Isaiah under whom they
work. They resemble the "sons of the prophets" from the
days of Elijah, who incidentally was not one of them. There is here the
implicit relative authority.
In
these cases, therefore, the context immediately interprets the reference: the
men are met as in authority, and are as "fathers and brethren";
or the people concerned are learning or seen as under authority related to
their situation specifically.
In
the Matthew 23:37 context as in the cognate cases so liberally shown in
prophetic challenge, above, the opposite is true. Here, so far from having the
seniors of the city distinctively addressed in their relative authority, by
which to relate the 'children' contrast, Christ "spoke to the
multitude, and to His disciples..." That is what the text says, and it
would seem good to stay with it. It is written for our instruction; so let us
be instructed. The apostrophe is directed, in theme, at certain persons; it is
spoken, in time, to "the multitude and to His disciples" ...
Matthew 23:1. The people as a whole are in view. And in such case, we
have seen the normal usage of referring to them as the "children
of..." a city, a nation, a progenitor. This is that. It is the one
context and not the other. Indeed, the scope and perspective is even as wide as
"this generation" (v.36) which of course is the force
of "the children of..." in a very obvious way.
And
where again could be even duplicated this reference to the "children
of..." a city, with the meaning of 'a section of them', in an
address to a stated 'multitude' ? The Isaiah case is one in which the
contradistinct is perfectly apparent and direct: "Bind up the
testimony; seal the law among my disciples..." It goes on: "And
I will wait upon the Lord..." The distinctive character of the
'children' leaves no doubt as to the designation; we are not left wondering if
this is a national reference as evidenced hundreds of times elsewhere in the
Old Testament. The internal correlation of 'parent' and children is indeed express
in the circumscribed context. The same is clear in Matthew 12:27, where Christ
is definably addressing fathers relative to their children. Such a case is not
therefore contextually relevant.
These
references therefore are not pertinent, for they are distinctive two-tier cases
of old and young, or senior and junior; as surely we may refer to the junior or
the younger as sons without any ambiguity in such a context, where the express
designation is made clear. The usage is however the same; where there is not
this differentiation shown, the normal usage remains that personification
with all the rich and multitudinous historical overtones and cases, of those
who inhabited the place or constituted the race.
We
are of course familiar with the more distantly genealogical phrase "children
of Abraham" from John 8:39 in Christ's usage of it; and indeed this is
most instructive in terms of usage, for it shows the strong implicit flavour
which can come with this phrase:
If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the
works of
Abraham.
The term then can signify a correlation of quality, a
parallel of character, a descent of reality and not mere appearance. There is a
close correlation with the object of reference in "children of..."
So was it in the case where a city is named, as shown in Isaiah.
Jerusalem has a past, a history, a standing,
it stands indeed for something - at least in measure and especially when, as
there, there is dynamic intercession to the name of the Lord, from whose name
its name has meaning. Thus again, in Psalm 149:2 we find not only a further
'city' reference, but we see in this parallelism, another aspect - that the
specific location can stand for the general type. Thus we find:
Let Israel rejoice in Him who made him; let
the children of Zion be joyful in their King... for the
Lord takes pleasure in His people (v.4).
Here is a double grounding of the term: it relates on the
one hand to Israel (v.2) and on the other to "His
people" (v.4).
The
usage of Matthew 23:37 therefore is not some unusual or strange or uncommon or
unique reference; it is wholly submerged in the general, the particular,
interpreted and re-interpreted phraseology of God's book. There being here,
therefore, no contextual ground for considering there is a variance from common
usage, we take the phrase as subsisting in the Biblical usage. To do otherwise
in such a context of total destruction for the city, is to ignore the idiom of
the language.
Suppose
however that we ignored this usage and the requirements of the context. Let us
suppose that Christ in fact was telling Jerusalem, - Jerusalem who kills the prophets... that He
would have liked to have selected the immature representatives of the species,
while the parents disported themselves so horribly, and have gathered them
protectively under His wings - what then ? Some strange results, predictably,
would follow.
It
would mean that Jesus had a longing to select out the children from the wilful
ruin of their parents but could not manage it (strange for the omnipotent). It
would be a baulked moral issue,not a loving longing. Therefore, since the
parents would not desist from their evils, He would personally
superintend the destruction of the children in view of the sins of the parents.
There was He, in the midst of a covenant people, looking helplessly at their
children, positively wanting to remove these 'innocent,' or pleasant chicks
from their wayward seniors, but in vain did He wish it; instead He would secure
their destruction instead of their deliverance from those woeful parents (cf.
John 5:19).
Further:
it would fare worse. Christ would have wished to take these little ones, and
would have failed; and His problem was that the parents would not. Their
specified adverse will stopped Him from delivering their children. It is not
the children's wills which are mentioned in the relevant delineation of the
picture in terms of entreaty, desire and destruction. It is the parents' wills;
the parents of these covenant children. Their sin did it. And yet in
Ezekiel 18:19 ff. we see that God is against the view that the son who
has done well will inherit the judgment of his father. Indeed, in 18:2-3 we are
forbidden the view:
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb
concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten
sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, says the Lord
God, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
No incertitude attaches to the point.
Now
we return to the actual text. Jesus speaks to the multitudes and to His
disciples. He gives advice in Matthew 23:1-12 intimately. He continues, having
spoken of the scribes and Pharisees to them, to apostrophise these... vv.
13-35. In v.36 he interdicts
the generation before Him, having spoken immediately before of preceding
generations of Israel. Then, having so stated
specifically His target, He apostrophises Jerusalem as a whole for its destruction. In
so doing He refers to its children, in a tender and idiomatically frequent
personification, the children of Jerusalem to whom His love and mercy
extended. Contrasting His will with the only other will He deems it relevant to
mention, He proceeds on to the total destruction of the total city in which
all, young and old were inhabitants. On this generation, as He had just
stated, would come the judgment long stored. And they ? they were those before
Him, who would suffer it, the city's people.
Thus
the stated audience is 'the whole multitude' and His disciples. God has spoken.
The area to be destroyed is the total city. The body specifically designated is
the generation, which implies the current inhabitants, conceived in their
lineage. The body who refuses is in this context of wholeness, the whole; and
in this context of a generation relative to preceding ones, it is the whole
one; and in this context of a generation, it is the contemporary one the
children of their day, the city of His time.
No
other interpretation does justice to the stated audience; the stated
generation; the stated destruction; and no other interpretation avoids clash
with the stated principles of the word of God; or does justice to the
sovereign omnipotence of that God who, if the children would have been
willing, would have indeed saved them: for He has no pleasure in the death of
the wicked, and would have all men come to a knowledge of the truth (Ezekiel
33:11; II Timothy 2:3-5). He does not lack power at all, to implement His stated
principles! "Is anything too hard for the Lord!" (Genesis
18:14).
A
parallel in Luke is also instructive. In Luke 19:44 we see that Jerusalem is seen as the structure, and
her children are seen as the inhabitants of that structure. The 'you' which
is to be laid even with the ground is the city of materials. The "children"
who are to be within that structure are undoubtedly the population, for all are
involved and we are here dealing in categories of totality - the city and the
people. Any other interpretation here would be not only an intrusion of a
particularity into the context which is not called for, but a denial of that
meaning which the nature of the judgment requires. The city is personified; but
the populace is signified; and its signification is 'children.' The air and
aura is deserved judgment, and to omit the senior citizens from this sweep
would be to ignore the consideration not only of the sweep and grandeur of the
devastation and the guilt, but to concentrate ineffectually on those less
active in securing that guilt in the relevant city-wide respect.
In
terms of a city, without more ado, the term 'children of...' is the populace;
and in terms of guilt and devastation the thought of omitting some, when we are
caused to see the very stones fall, would be to localise the impact, to limit
the result in obvious mockery of the intent of the text (Luke 19:44). Moreover,
there we face a structure and its children, with the structure yet personified:
there can be no doubt the person's children are the people. To state otherwise
is to limit the unlimited designation of the word of God. This does not delimit
a section of the populace; it designates city contents.
Returning
to Matthew 23:37 we find that a similar consideration applies. Jerusalem is singular and personified; and
then her children are considered. If she be the adult, then the children are
those whom she has 'spawned' or 'begotten.' To limit this, again, is to limit
the word of God in its collation of parent city and children in a way unknown
in Scripture; disruptive of the metaphor; superimposing alien and unnatural
considerations on the clear correlation of the text.
Thus
in Isaiah 66, we read: "As one whom his mother comforts, so will I
comfort you, and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem." There again is the sense of
mothering a populace; the sense of maternal tenderness relative to a citizenry
who without any doubt, correlatively, young and old, are the "children."
Here a divine comforter closely collates with the city of comfort, which had
become uncomfortable; but which through His comfort should again be the area of
ministration of comfort. This intimacy of city and comfort goes further.
Similarly,
in Isaiah 66:10-12, we see a Jerusalem which is mother - we say still a mother
city - which gives her breasts of consolation to "all ye that love
her," for these terms interrelate. She will dandle them upon her
knees. Though the figure requires the use of children in order to maintain the
consistency of the metaphorical system, there is no possible thought of the
dandled ones being of some preferable age group. The people who are to love her
are those whom she comforts - this usage is also repetitive in Hosea 2:1-5.
Just
so, away from the special air of controversy which predestination and the will
so often engenders, we can return and see afresh that the personified Jerusalem
of Matthew 23:37 will have children who are the correlate of herself as mother;
and these are those whom she succours, and those are her inhabitants... set
apart for destruction in the historical sweep of generations, leading to this
one: the children of the day set before past times (cf. Matthew 23:34-36, in
the same chapter, immediately prior).
Indeed,
Zion, in close correlation with
Jerusalem (Isaiah 66:7-10) is seen as
travailing and bringing forth... and what is born ? "Shall a nation be
born at once ?" The Scriptural correlate of the mother city is the
mothered people, and just as the figure requires it, so the text thrusts it
home.
We
can of course sympathise with the desire to avoid this text with its
contextually, figuratively, and pervasively clear implication; the Lord having
spoken again and again in His word to cover the case. There is a feeling that
this gives men the power to overcome the will of God. But it is not so. The
willingness of God is not the will of God... as seen so often, and for example
in II Chronicles 36:15-17. Here He had compassion both deep and prolonged on
the people to such effect that He sent numerous messengers; with the result
that an irremediable wrath arose. The same consideration is manifested
repetitively in Psalm 106, where compassions abound, until their recipients are
so provocative that wrath intrudes. The willingness is wonderful; the mercy is
profound; but in time, there is another end.
This
subject is given more extensive treatment in my PREDESTINATION AND
FREEWILL,for example on pp. 44ff..
If
now the reference had been: 'O part of Jerusalem, O part of Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets... How
often would I have gathered another part of you together'... but even that
would have difficulties; for if the subject were 'part of Jerusalem' the rest
would not be 'another part of you,' for the 'you' would itself be but part. Let
us try again: 'O part of Jerusalem, O part of Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets... how often would I have gathered another part of Jerusalem together,
the way a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you (the first part)
were unwilling.'
This
conceivably might have been written, were it not for the inferential and noted
collision with the express provisions of the word of God in terms of principle
(Ezekiel 18). The point which attracts one's attention, however, is simple. It
is not written.
On
the other hand, the usage of "Jerusalem," the name of a city... a designable
and express entity: it is written.
Her
children, as so dramatically evident in Isaiah 66:7- 8, are simply the
contemporary generation of the parent city. They may be "brought
forth" (Isaiah 66:8) from the womb (v. 19), but they are thus
residents in the presence of the old city. We are then not talking of a
children's crusade but of a city which has had a habit - a bad one - of killing
prophets (Matthew 23:37; cf. Matthew 23:28-33). They are a generation (23:30-33) and so children of the city
which was of such enduring history: on them as a 'GENERATION' was this
wrath to come. Her citizens, the children of the day, were desired, unwilling
and sovereignly rejected. This was done in irresolvable repudiation, always
foreknown, long foretold, specifically predestinated by the God who was before
time, and who at this time was investing history with Himself.
Here
reference should be made to Jeremiah 51:9 and 29, concerning Babylon - the "would
have healed" and the "every purpose will be performed";
Jeremiah 31:20 - the compunction and compassion amidst judgment; Isaiah 7 - the
offer of sublime aid and performance and the result of its rejection: a
happening that would not help the hapless king, just now so endued with hope;
Hosea 7:1 - the "would have healed" in a condemnatory setting,
once again.
What
then ? In Matthew 23, we find the divine eye on Jerusalem in pity, looking with a tenderness,
a pathos and an enduring interest that is not reciprocated, the breach of
which, carried out in earnest and to the crucial climax inevitably brings
destruction to that city.
The
tenor of the Matthew 23 passage is closely allied to that in Proverbs 1:20-33,
where there is seen wisdom calling to the 'simple ones': "Turn at my
reproof; surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to
you. Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand, and
no one regarded, Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of
my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity ..."
Just
as in Matthew 23, here is the pathos, the appeal, the rejection, the scorn and
contempt, the rebuttal, the result. The divine willingness is here once
again exhibited in action and in particular, and not in general principles
alone, and this in a manner both practical and fundamental.
While,
as stated, detailed treatment of this topic appears in Predestination and
Freewill it might be convenient to add some little treatment here on the
point (cf. pp.
489 ff., 515 ff., 723 ff., 861-868, 1040, 1059-1060 supra; 1205-1206
infra).
EZEKIEL
Thus the attitude of God is clearly shown in Ezekiel
33:11, Colossians 1:19ff. and I Timothy 2:3-5 for example. As John Murray has
declaimed, in the first of these, we have divine asseveration, negation,
affirmation, and we have protestation. The depth - "As I live";
the negation - "no pleasure in the death of the wicked"; the
affirmation - but that the wicked should turn and live; the exhortation - "turn
ye"; the protestation - "for why will ye die ?" This
is clear. The people concerned are "the wicked". If they do
not turn, then they will be cast out like any other wicked, and their non-elect
souls will, like those of any other non-elect, languish in exclusion from the
deity. The judicial turning of Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46, cf. 1 John
2:1-2), like the sending of Jonah to Nineveh, makes clear the love of God and
the applicability of His one Gospel to any and to all.
Let
us turn now to the Timothy passage noted.
I TIMOTHY
(1)
Chapter 2 of this
Epistle and some ISSUES ARISING (VERSES 3-5)
In the Timothy passage, we are brought into generalities in
sweeping style. There are thoughts of "all men" in v.1
preceding; and for those in authority we are exhorted to make prayer. The
reason relates to the authority over all - "for this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour".
In
v.4 we are given an indication concerning this final authority and His
attitude. He has given tangible expression to His mind, and made suitable
provisions for its intent (v.5). Never can it justly be construed, after
reading this, that the Father is somewhat reticent in the disposition of His
love and His practicality of implementation. Never again could we justly say:
Well, the Father actually has no heart, as far as salvation is concerned,
except for that of a few: there is a limit at that level so to speak. His
attitude, His actuating attitude is restrictive, might it be urged ? and His
result is restrictive, and the latter results from the former. Not this!
for the exact opposite is here explicitly taught.
No,
not at all: for the explicit areas of God and mankind are those to which we are
directed to look, as we learn that God "would have all men to be
saved". A restrictive exegesis of this passage therefore would ignore
the very declaration made, would negate it... Perhaps such a distortion might
seem in the interest of avoiding what is (wrongly) imagined to be an
unacceptable implication - that God would in that case want something, indeed
decide upon it, and then be frustrated. Such a result would indeed be
incredible (and in fact reminds one of the results of the erroneous
interpretation of Matthew 23:37 which we had occasion to dismiss).
It would be incredible, for example, in the light of His sovereign power (e.g.
Ephesians 1:11); but as shown at length in the above cited work, this is an
erroneous implication. It does not follow. We must ADHERE TO THE TEXT and
refine our logic; NOT DIVERGE from the text following AUTONOMOUS LOGIC
not disposed to face the facts.
Indeed,
we read in I Timothy 6:9 of the fact of perdition, damnation. We read in I Timothy 2:1
ff. of the mind of God, of the attitude if you will, of the way His face
is set: God is He "who would have all men to be saved". Now
the Greek verb rendered "would have" (I Timothy 2:4) is associated
with an infinitive and the sense of 'purpose' or 'movement towards' is
conveyed. This conceptually is entirely similar to the declaration in Ezekiel
33:11, and with the insight given in Jeremiah 18:7-9. Since, then, God makes it
clear He works all things after the counsel of His will; has such thoughts,
desires and attitudes, yet makes such resolutions and carries them out - it is
apparent that we must be learners of the divine ways, not teachers. We must
follow what is written sensitively through its elements, neither adding nor
subtracting. When our minds meet the word of God, that is the only way...
As
to the Greek verb mentioned, see PREDESTINATION AND FREEWILL,p. 47-
here we noted that an unfulfilled type of attitude relative to action
may be used in correlation with this construction. We may refer then to God's actuating
attitude as distinct from His sovereign decision - as in Jeremiah
18, indeed. An attitudinal and dispositional fact is one thing; the eventual
resolution is another, in which all one's desire and heart is fulfilled. The
matter then is not new. Thus this attitude does indeed, as stated in I Timothy
2:4, relate to all men.
And
if this were insufficient, the next verse (I Timothy 2:5) proceeds to indicate
that in just accord with this amplitude of attitude and love toward men, there
is an ample provision made. (It is as if a father indicated in his will that
for all his sons, by his attitudinal relation, it was his wish that they go to
University; and he supplied funds which could be taken for the purpose -
only this one: but they could refuse - John 3:17-19.)
While
however we must stress this amplitude of vital love, we must avoid an error opposite
to that of restricting, contrary to His word, the dimension of His love. Thus
we must not imagine that the redemption secured is as broad as the love shown.
Some contort the love to a sort of class-conscious thing, related by
contradiction to that God who is love, and says so: and to that world
which He states He loved - and this is most important - "SO loved"
(John 3:16). He so loved that He gave the Redeemer.
Others
want to use purely human logic, and that without necessity, to embrace
redemption for all - an equally unscriptural concept - in order to
refute those who reduce the dimensions of the love. It is like children at a
party, with their effervescent games. By failing to differentiate even to the
extent of the difference between actuating love and effectuating love, they extend the first to make
it the second, thus instituting an erroneous universal redemption. This is then used as a
reduction ad absurdum to 'refute' the Biblically stated dimension of the vital
love of God. Alas, it all appears childish, wildish clangour, as if to bump the
arm of the word of God, in thoughtless exuberance, one way or the other:
impatient or intolerant of what is written - ALL of it being binding.
We
must protest. Let us consider, as such thinkers rightly show, first how clear a
limited redemption in fact is. Thus in John 10, the Good Shepherd Himself
signified that there was a variety of sheep that were not His - John
10:26. Now He did have other sheep not of that particular fold, such no doubt
as Gentiles. But in addition there is a third category: those who are not His
sheep. Indeed, Christ stated categorically that they did not believe because
they were not His. These then are outside His protection and the due care of
His calling, and hence also outside that supreme cost of His protection - the
laying down of His life.
This
vitally interesting point is in perfect accord with Romans 8:32 ff. which as John Murray (Redemption
Accomplished and Applied) well shows, requires a limited atonement, a
limited redemption. Those for whom He is delivered up are those to whom the
Father will give, with Christ, all things. This is not the lot of the unsaved!;
and as to the saved, the justified, Paul asserts they will be glorified (Romans
8:30).
This 'us' in 'us all', consists of those who will by no means be separated from
the love of Christ either by things present or by things to come. Yet those who
gnash in outer darkness are distinctively, emphatically and irremediably
separated. That is a thing to come. Thus these groups not merely differ: they
are opposites in destiny.
Indeed,
in Romans 8:33, the same group for whom Christ is delivered up - the saints to
whom Paul states he is speaking and who will not at all be separated from the
love of God (Romans 8:38-39) - are "the elect".
He
lays down His life for His sheep, and these are limited, contra-distinct. He
freely gives them all things. In the heart of the Shepherd is this knowledge:
perhaps the last thing He would be ignorant of is - who are His! This settled, these
require His utmost endeavours in intimate shepherd-sheep correlation even
to the point of the sacrifice of His life for them (John 10:11-15,25-30).
Accordingly
for His, those whose sins He bore (Romans 3:25 ff.) there is justification (cf.
Isaiah 53:10). The slaying of the wilderness creatures of sin requires His
life; and what He covers is His. Being His, it is not only redeemed but
justified, declared fit by virtue of the price He paid to secure them. "He
shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities." The bearing
is a sufficient condition for the justifying. What God covers is adequately
covered, and what He does is effectual, as Romans so loudly trumpets, as we
have just seen. Indeed, the clear teaching of John 10 is that He redeems it because
it is His (10:26).
Thus
we avoid both the diminution of the love of God which Spurgeon sees in
terms of caricature (infra) and the extension of the redemption of God
to those to whom it is not given. Love in its breadth is satisfied - but it is
real, within its own terms; and redemption is accomplished within what is
fulfilled; and all is predestinated in genuineness and reality, and not at all
in some imaginary short-circuit of the character of Christ or of the Father as
shown in the numerous statements of principle (cf. Predestination and
Freewill, pp. 160-9).
(Here
we omit for our current brief purpose, part of this Appendix, and proceed …)
1 TIMOTHY (2)
Now let us ponder further the
categories in I Timothy 2. These are vast and total: God and man; God and
rulers. The provision side of it is startling in the majestic totality of its
compass: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, and
the man Jesus Christ." It would not be possible to be more total in
canvas, to establish with more certainty the dimensions of one's speech. It is
stark, it is summary, it is overall.
It is clear the condemnation does not
inexorably proceed for the many because of a limited actuating love
in the Father, or a sacrifice incompetent to provide, were it needed. This is
over and again, scripturally flatly contradicted, as we have shown and shall
show. Such a proposition is no less at variance with scripture than is, for
example, the errant view that man simply chooses God (versus Romans 9:22, where
the decisive, divine will is conjoined with a what if - Romans
9:16, 22 - and John 15:16 with 10:26, where the will to disbelieve depends on
their not being His sheep). The tradition that 'sovereignty' must be
affirmed, whatever may be said for any other scripture or any other transcript
of its mode of working, is in vast danger of being one more, as it were,
tradition of the Pharisees, and the opposite, one more of the Sadducees.
Scripture must not be used (abused) to back up
some philosophy, but to create the concepts of thought. Then and then
only will harmonious developments occur, though not always without endeavour
... (Proverbs 25:2 - this is not to say the doctrine is to be created, but that
it is, though present, to be found).
The atonement is limited, but not by actuating
love; the selection is sovereignly made, but not without the love that God IS,
not with chilling exclusivism at the attitudinal level. Rather is it limited
with fiat finality at the operative level, the heart of the Father having
fulfilled every love in accord with the many cited scriptures, whether to the
'covenant people' or not; both categories are citable and cited. The scope of
the atonement is sufficient for all; the impact of the atonement
is just as clearly on those for whom it is, in God's most loving purity,
intended. God does not disregard the 'orphans' whom He does not select;
His selection is not a 'sovereignty' over Him, which temporarily
took over heaven in the predestinative action (or analytically did so, if you
prefer non-time envisagement as a better conceptual field).
The sovereigntyISthat of a gracious
person who is love. The predestination acts in its reality. Everything acts in
this reality. God is what He is and not what some theologians appear to 'make'
Him, however inadvertently.
It is clear a man must answer for his own sin,
then (John 3:19). The condemnation, after all is in terms of a preference
not for light. It is not because of sin, as John 15:22-24 shows, but
rejection of Christ. To this we shall return. Now of what is John 1 speaking ?
would not one gain rather the impression that it is of Christ, of Him
who came as light, though He had never been fully absent (John l:9-10); who was
incarnated, though Himself the eternal word; who 'declared' His Father (1:18), though none could 'see' Him!
Is it not in fact a declaration that the true light became flesh, that
receiving Him is receiving God, that here is the personal declaration of God in
human form, reality ambulant
.
Is
this not, as John 3:13 tells us, the One who
came down from Heaven, the singular demonstration of the Father? is this not
the One who, in terms of God's great love for the world, has come so that
believers should not perish? is this not He who did not, emphatically not
come for the purpose of condemnation (that will come soon enough) - 3:36, but that believers might be His indeed, to quote Him, "that
the world through Him might be saved"!
Then, in John 3:19, the condemnation is in this
context. If this does not establish a context, nothing could; the other
attitudinal scriptures at which we have looked and will look and could look,
put the point past doubt in any case. What then is the ground of
condemnation in this Christ and in relation to Him; for this is
the One to whom authority is given (5:27) and who brings to the knowledge of
the Father, those whom He wills (Matthew 11:27). It is informed preference
against this Christ. He has come; and to deny Him is to deny all (cf. John 8:42). In the very discourse that "he
who does not believe (in Him) is condemned already" we read: "this
is the condemnation". This ? Yes and more. It is in the context of a reason
being given in both verses and given in terms of condemnation. In verse 18,
the reason is that the person did not believe in Christ, and in verse
19, it is that light has come and darkness is preferred.
In other words, sin occurs with a breach of the
law, any breach, however small. But the question is put in rather different
terms: what brings condign condemnation at this level ? After all, the
Saviour is talking. He came, as we are told, to save rather than to
condemn. We are told it in this very place. What in His face, in the face of
His love and presence and coming will bring, despite this vast expenditure and
availability and expression, what WILL then bring condemnation ? It is
like saying: The mechanic is here. What will make your car useless now! An
explosion ?
Disbelief qualifies for condemnation. Why ?
Verse 19 tells us: This Christ, this light who is in focus and on
whom the whole book has been dwelling in terms of His person, mission and
salvatory function, has come. He is the quintessence and fulness of
light, and now condemnation, irrevocable condemnation, damnation depends
on the failure to receive Him! He, the light, has come in express
form and is expressly rejected. What more could be done or said, than has
been done and said! Hence damnation ensues in the very presence of that One who
is God, who is love (cf. Revelation 1:18-19).
It is, then, as we have noted, clear that a man
must answer for his own sin (John 3:19), and that this answer, if
negative, is despite (and not because of) the loving actuating
attitude in God. As Spurgeon well propounds it, in his address on Romans 9 in The
Treasury of the Bible, to affirm any such abortion or shortage or
non-operation, indeed exclusion, as if of 'grace', as if God were - we might
paraphrase - short-circuited in love or grace: this a 'hideous caricature' of
the love of God. It would also be in collision with the scriptures to which we
are, in so many instances, referring.
(It might here be noted, for any interested for
any reason, that the relation of some of these matters to various past
theologians is shown at some length, in Predestination and Freewill,
op.cit., though the Bible is and must be in the end the sole source for
exposition.)
COLOSSIANS
Colossians 1:19-21 in turn makes it
clear what pleased the Father... that having made peace through the blood of
the Cross, Christ might re-concile all things - rather that He, the Father,
through Christ might reconcile all things. Which 'all' ? "Things in
earth or in heaven", comes the expansive and specifying answer.
There again is the scope - God and man; divine
attitude and the entire universe are in view. To read into this statement
limitations is, of course, in the deepest and simplest sense of the word, to
add to Scripture. Nay it is to contradict it. It would be like, for example,
saying that 'God works all things after the counsel of His own will... (add)
that is, all classes of things!' It would be an appalling insertion, intrusion
and presumption. Nor can it be done here in these celestial-terrestrial
categories. If one could do that, why one could virtually write one's own
theology, merely using God as a taking-off point. The Liberals for long did
just that. Re-writing in the name of God, however, lacks a certain realism ...
one might also say, humility!
Yet such things are not unknown.
Let us then return to Colossians 1:19-21. Such
total coverage of the field could not be indicated more clearly. As in I
Timothy 2, it comes into the two categories without limitation, qualification
or moderation. There - God, here - man.
So far, then, from the context relieving us of
its force of this assertion, it amplifies it; in eloquence it underlines it.
There is systematic correlation between what pleases the Father, what He would
like, and what He did.
Underlines ? In this also: that there is even
the repetition of emphasis. Thus we have, "By Him to reconcile
all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in
heaven." Again, there is "all" first, and then in the
compass of the terrestrial-celestial cover, "things on earth or... in
heaven". It even stresses further the categories: "whether
things on earth or things in heaven". There is no distancing; there is
intimacy. There is rapprochement that spills over. There is the emphatic
emphasised. The thought of limitation is swept away and scope is amplified.
What is repeated is the sense of universality: not of salvation but of
scope for salvation. There is the Father's willingness, here literally, His good
pleasure.
Further, not only did it please the Father that
ALL THINGS should be reconciled to Him, but it pleased Him in a context
of His choosing to correlate this, as it were, to put it in connective
tissue with the fact that it also pleasedHim to have "ALL
FULNESS... dwell" in Christ. (See Appendix D - He
inspired the scripture.)
Just as surely as Christ incorporates the
reality of deity, all fulness dwells in Him, so comes the rejoinder: reconcile
all things. The 'all' is tied into a totality so qualitatively illimitable,
irrepressible and wonderful, that it would represent an abortion bordering on
blasphemy to try to limit the one in the face of the other. Further it would,
as we have already noted, introduce an additive element into scripture, one
that is not written, not there. Proverbs 30:6 would not advise this!
In the face of all this, and in the context
also, man is held responsible. His negative response to God's overtures
is continually cited, indicted and reviewed in Scripture (cf. II Chronicles
36:15-16). It is in fact one characteristic of Scripture, found in both
Testaments with marvellous appeal and attitudinal reality, sincerity and
involvement. Without this, scripture would be a different book, and God a
different God.
Man is truly and meaningfully responsible, not
only for his sin, but for his refusal (John 3:19, Proverbs 1:20-27, John 15:21-
23); and this refusal is in the face of the divine attitude, as expressed so
forcibly in Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:1-7, I John 2:2, in which last case the
availability - attitudinally - of the atonement is as clearly universal as in
the cases cited above; though its limitation likewise is elsewhere exceedingly
clear, in terms of actual sin-bearing.
It is not a matter of man's will being
corrupt and so therefore irrelevant; it is a matter of God being
able to operate in sickness or in health, in death or in life. He is not
limited (Isaiah 43:13, Psalm 115:3). Let the will be dead, yes let it (to
follow the Lazarus analogy) 'stink' if you will; let the understanding be
alienated yet it is no barrier to Him.
Biblical predestination is far more and quite
other than any matter of being impressed with future works (Romans 9), as a
ground or consideration or future faith (Ephesians 2:8-9): it is Biblically a
matter of the Lord knowing who are His own (I Timothy 2:19). As
to the whole operation of being saved by faith through grace (the neuter
is used for the word "that" in Ephesians 2:8, making the
coverage one of the whole system cited), what does it say ? This
salvation-by-faith-through-grace: It is not of ourselves, God's word
declares. It is the gift of God.
It is then not these futures on which it
depends; it is a matter of knowing who are His. Since man is a willing
being, in the image of God, and since he is accountable for doing despite to
God's willing offers (Psalm 106:7, II Chronicles 36:15-16, Psalm 95:6-11,
Jeremiah 51:9, Hosea 7:1, 1 Timothy 2:4, Acts 7:51-53), man's will is
indicatable not in some solemn farce, presupposing no genuineness on the part
of the Almighty, not in denying the actuality of this height of love, the love
which God is (I John 4:14).
It is indicatable because even when Christ came
and did the works (John 15:24) and spoke the words no other had
spoken (John 15:22), despite His power and love and indeed, His personal
incarnation, commitment and His presence, they still did not respond.
They could not ? True. But He, saving them, could make them able, regenerating
without the denial of the reality of freedom, without subverting man's
image-bearing reality which He had Himself made, as He says; and
had seen fit to dower to man... Though now, for many sins it had become
inoperative at this level, being so sick and so corrupt, yet the will of man
did not bewilder Him! He could work His works of salvation both
with restraint and with reality, neither abusing love in this thing, into
violence, nor abating force into tepidity.
God can make them able in His so first
choosing (predestinating: logical order) to save some in His love and in so
regenerating them (chronological order: it comes in the end) that He deals with
men's freedom. He deals with it as defunct, but not departed; as structurally
present, as it were, with the divine image yet imprinted. Though functionally
disqualified, being abused, it is not beyond His operation; and in this He is
alone, the sole operative, and for this reason. In Christ, God secures those
who are His own just where, when and how it pleases Him.
He could well take account of what He knew ("whom
He 'FOREKNEW', He predestinated," says Paul in Romans 8:29), yes knew, though neither
they nor their wills were valid enough for men to understand, let alone to
operate at such levels. Does not David in Psalm 139 make this overarching power
of God entirely clear (cf. p. 426 supra)!
Will men, whether in the interest of a
quasi-orthodoxy little better than mere traditionalism, or an open radicalism,
then limit the Holy One and add to both scripture and structure as defined in
scripture ? What does David say, attesting God's power (but does one need to
stress this ?)...
Indeed the darkness
shall not hide from Thee... darkness and light are both alike to Thee (Psalm 139:12).
Small wonder such knowledge is étoo
wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain to it,é Psalm 139:6. When God
tells us these relevant doctrines on will and wonder, we must be ready to see how
such things could be, without presuming to declare any
composition of doctrines beyond what they are; and so marvel at the unique CONSISTENCY
of God's word in this area of freedom, responsibility and predestination.
Indeed then we can do so without presuming to narrow them
to the scope of our own intellects, demanding in neo-scholastic fear what in
fact contradicts the clear statements of scripture, or on the other hand, to expand
them, with flamboyant Arminian contradiction. This joint approach is taken
here. Thus we may also fulfil 1 Peter 3:15.
As to God's thoughts for
the one whose very body was programmed 'in secret' David says of these divinely
caring creative contemplations:
How great is the sum of
them! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand.
Again, If I make my bed in hell, Thou
art there.
David is a believer ? Assuredly, but
God is not limited by our conceptions or consciousness and knows us thoroughly.
If we gained what we deserve, we would all be in hell, for there is no
imperfection in heaven, but rather the spirits of the just, made perfect
(Hebrews 12:23). Yet God is able to foreknow whom He predestinates
(Romans 8:29). In love, He is able to predestinate.
That is what He has done, without any
conferment of merit either direct or indirect... by no means choosing those
with an inherent X-factor of God-acceptability, the prefects of spirituality! a
hideous factor which can so readily inferentially creep in, when the fact that
God set His IMAGE in man is forgotten, and man is treated as if lacking that
inheritance absolutely. (Cf. Romans 3:22-24, 4:25, 7:18-24 ... Indeed, observe
that for body, Christ took that image of man, and in it,
as God, proclaimed that truth in Person - as in
Matthew 23:37 cf. Luke 19:42-45, John 15:22-24 - just as here in Colossians 1,
it is proclaimed in principle.)
But now, rather, the responsibility is on man,
and it is intensely meaningful and grounded in reality; and God made that
reality. God is free - even from theologians - but exalts His word and
magnifies His law (Isaiah 42:21, Psalm 138:2). Not only is God free, but He
knows freedom, is the Father, author, base and meaning of it, and in liberality
has the God of truth pleaded, not with His own will, but with that of men
(Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 30:18-19, 29:11-15, 30:16).
Merit then ? It is declared irrelevant by God
except that absolute merit of Christ on whose merit indeed, salvation is
granted, through which virtue operates. Salvation based on assessment of
character might be meritoriously gained indeed; but God's word is clear, there
is nothing of this. The will, then, which God so often cites as the agent of
deceit and doom ? Negative preference on the part of man, divinely
determined and not autonomously produced, is the precise paradigm of
everlasting exclusion (cf. pp. 1129,
426 supra). What is inoperable at
the relevant level is not therefore non-existent. Dead wills are not
impenetrable by God, any more than guilty souls are unjustifiable through
Christ's blood, when God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5).
The "Lord is wonderful in counsel and
excellent in working" (Isaiah 28:29): "how unsearchable are
His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33). To know
what are His ways, we must attend therefore to what He says; and when we do, it
has a harmony and a beauty which is incomparable. How He does what He
does is His inimitable prerogative to know; what He does and what
He chooses to tell us suffices for the exhibition of this uniquely majestic,
wholly unpredictable and glorious consistency.
Let us however return to our preceding thought,
in God's justification of the ungodly, as reminiscent of His unpredictable
dealing in lavish generosity, with those whom He foreknew, following His good
pleasure and His willingness, as Colossians 1 and 1 Timothy 2, for example,
indicate.
BE JOYFUL WITH JOHN
Thus guilt before Christ's words and
deeds is categorical and absolute (John 15:22-24). This separate scripture
confirms and affirms what is found before: "if I had not come among
them..." This is express and explicit. Once grant that He was not
there; once imagine that He did not do these things among
them, did not speak to them what He did.... and then what ? Is it not
time to listen to what the Lord says... ? What then ?
"They would have no sin."That is what is written here. That
is what is written TWICE here. The matter is affirmed relative to the absence
of His speech and the absence of His personal
performance of
deeds among them. No deeds and words from Him coming among them ? Then,
says the Lord, they would have no sin. What no sin ? not in the
relevant category! (Cf. John 9:3.)
Who indeed is without sin! All have
sinned (Romans 3:23). What then is the relevant category here ? We are
dealing with hating or loving Christ, with being of the world or of God
(John 15:18 ff.); of being persecuted as His or persecuting
those who are His, of knowing the One who sent Christ or of not doing so. We
are in the field of being expressly for or against the One who is manifesting
God absolutely, though through a human form. Now this is, of course, the area
of salvation and damnation; this is the crux, the pivot, the destining
exhibition, what shows who and where you are. So (Luke 19:41-42) Christ wept:
If you had known, even
you, especially in this your day, the things which make for your peace! But now
they are hidden from your eyes.
We are here reminded of the weeping
of Elisha as he set about appointing the man to be king of Syria and plague to
Israel, in divine discipline (II Kings 8:12). "Now", said
Christ, "they are hidden from your eyes. If you had known,"
said the weeping Son of God... Then, ah then! So great is the love of
God, so sure is His knowledge.
Thus if Christ had not so spoken, as we
read in John 15, and done, in their midst these things, they would not have
sinned relative to salvation, and would not be demonstrated as being on
damnation duties. Of course, predestinatively God knows and has elected all who
are elected; but historically, these would thus far and in this,
not have sinned against salvation, the question at point. (Cf. Ephesians 1:4-5,
John 5:19-23.)
It is, then, as we have seen, guilt before
Christ's words and saving works which is categorical and absolute, which damns;
and the eternal God does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). This is the
categorical character of damnation on the part of God whose Son both mirrors
Him (John 14:9, Hebrews 1:3,8) and wept. It is so in essential character
before time. It is so no less in terms of historical validation, eventuation,
verification, demonstration. Christ is not a suggestion of God; He is
God manifest. Men go to hell, not divinely 'bedevilled'; not discreetly denied;
not in each and every relevant sense to the issue, unsought.
They would assuredly deserve such
treatment of their sins, but that is not the issue. It is the word of God about
His approach to man, which is the present issue: not the undoubted due of sin,
but the declared attitude of love. Thus force also has its ways; but God does
not say that He is force (1*), though Almighty He certainly is. Love also
has its ways, and the love of God is love's original. It is of this we read.
Christ Himself is the gate-control to hell (Revelation 1:18-19) and thither more can reach
except past His restraint : His character, His control, His love. No, to hell
men do not go through mere absence of relevant love on the part of that
God who Himself declares that He is love (1 John 4:8).
Not such is the criterion here stated. Rather
it is in the face of all the love and power of God that they depart from Him
who is divine, to their unprofitable destiny. And there are many who do! The
way to life is narrow, and there are few who find it; we however
are considering neither statistics nor guilt, at this point, as such: we look
rather at the declared love of God and the stated principles which He elects to
honour towards man.
Our text shows that it is this guilt before Christ
which demarcates the damned; and it so demarcates them that the love of God is FULFILLED,
not FRUSTRATED, and His power is triumphant. He has done what He will;
and He has done it how He willed; and He always does.
Nowhere in all
philosophy has anyone ever performed
what God
so quietly, so personally or so simply declares in His word, the Bible...
the
reconciliation of freedom, and responsibility,
divine sovereignty
and human reality,
divine
love and human tempo,
the
correlation of material determinism and spiritual freedom
without
divorce and degrading of either:
a
determinism which is derivative and dependent and irruptible at will,
but which
goes on its course on divine sufferance and will.
Personality is preserved;
individuality is preserved;
accountability
is meaningful;
responsibility
is wholly real;
God is
entirely omnipotent in practice as well as in 'theory' -
He gains
just what He will just how He will,
being
Himself and securing and procuring with a display which is not doubtful,
and with
a declaration and a demonstration which is not obscure.
No mere
circumstance is permitted to exclude from God, in the ultimate,
for love
shuns mere shunning (I Corinthians 13, I Timothy 2:1-4, Colossians 1:19-22)
and God knows
His own (Romans 8:29) in Christ,
from
before all time (Ephesians 1:4) and beyond all human eventuation (Romans 9:15-16).
Having apprehended, comprehended and responded
to the whole matter beforehand, not in oblivion of His qualities of love or
power, but wholly equipped with and consistent with the scripture in the use of
both, He then irrevocably and unfailingly uses, but never abuses, the
historical reality in which and through which He declares Himself, thus making
freedom more real. Not limited to our limitations nor required to 'perform' in
our time zones, God abides by His stated principles: matters consistent,
harmonious and rationally unimpugnable.
This is one more element
therefore in verification of that word of God, the Bible, which attests its
source: its sufficiency, its proficiency
for all things, its entire uniqueness.
Bent by nothing, it blends
the rational, the spiritual, the moral with an integrity that surpasses the
mere inventiveness of man, but which meets all tests. It rings with the voice
of eternity, just as does the remorselessly real and divinely beautiful
character of Jesus Christ.
Thus this Appendix may be deemed a verificatory
work: it has taken us some time, but it is there; and the alert reader may have
noted it so listed on p. xxviii at the commencement.
II CHRONICLES 36
Let us revert to our reference a
little earlier to this: "He has done what He will; and He has done it
HOW He will; and He always does" (cf. Ps. 115:3, Ephesians 1:11).
It is of such a movement we read earlier (II Chronicles 36:15-16): "And
the Lord, the God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers rising up
early and sending; because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling
place"; but (*2)...
THEY MOCKED THE
MESSENGERS OF GOD, AND DESPISED HIS WORDS AND SCOFFED AT HIS PROPHETS until the
wrath of the Lord
arose against His people, TILL THERE WAS NO REMEDY
The "no remedy" is
not (*3) the result of a law greater than God, but is His decision (Ephesians
1:11, Isaiah 40:8,14,25). Here also ponder Matthew 23:37, Jeremiah 18:1-18,
Colossians 1:18-2:9 and allied scriptures. 'Sovereignty' does not transcend,
amend or deport the stated, the revealed and the declared will, way and nature
of God. It is a name given rather to the security with which He secures what He
claims, does what He says, and is what He declares.
There is no need to do violence to Scripture
(even on the part of the unruly!), in order to evacuate 'texts' of 'dangerous'
meanings: the word of God is not merely charming but of chaste integrity, and
must not suffer violence. It is necessary to do justice to it,
avoiding the needlessly and wrongly controversial extremes that depend on
intrusion or exclusion: building up an understanding of all the components as
they come (II Timothy 2:15) - and learning of Him, for He is meek and
lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29), the very expression of the infinite God, whose
ways do not change.
It is His word. He says it.
HERE it would be good if the reader
desires more directly bearing on this topic, to consult
Cascade of Truth, Torrent of Mercy Ch. 2.
Also highly pertinent is The
Power of Christ's Resurrection and the Fellowship
of His Sufferings Ch. 1, *2, found in part in Ch. 6 below, the (shorter) original being in the
setting of Repent or Perish Ch. 1.
B.
EXCERPT from the Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 4
This will
be kept to the format a little less in size,
to prevent a sense of too much space with the sizable excerpts.
There
is need in all thing as to have fidelity to the scripture. Tradition may go
this way or that, at this time or that; but it is not sufficient. It must be
subjected to scrupulous scrutiny. What is taught and what is believed must not
exceed what is written and its necessary implications. By no means must work in
this area exceed what is necessarily implicit, for doctrine, in the interests
of pleasant short cuts or real verbal rigour. Indeed, personal reticence in the
presence of the word of God is required.
THE LIGHT IDENTIFIED
This in John 3 we
are told that THIS is the condemnation, that light has come into the world and
men loved darkness rather than light, or more literally, men loved the darkness
more than the light.
Now if anyone
sought to establish that the light referred to was not Jesus Christ, he would
have some difficulty in escaping a just charge of eisogesis. After all, the
Gospel of John has been at extreme pains to show that the light IS Jesus
Christ, sent into the world. It actually SAYS so (John 1:3,10-11). The Word is
the focus, it was the light, is the light, became flesh and dwelt among us.
This is the declaration.
John the Baptist,
we read in John 1, came for a witness. HE was not the light, we are told. That
true light was in the world made by Him (as noted in John 1:3), came to His
own, was not received by them, but was received by certain ones, who became His
people, born not of the will of man but of God. Accordingly, Jesus declares in
John 9:5, As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world; and again,
in John 12:36ff.: "Yet a
little while is the light with you . Walk while you have the light, lest
darkness come on you": "While you have the light, believe in
the light, that you may be the children of light". In John 8:12, He announces: "I am the light of the world: he
who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life."
Again,
as already noted, John the Baptist was a witness to this Light. What light ?
The light of general exposure to the testimony of God's creation ? Was it necessary
for him to teach them theism ? Is that the portent of John 1 ? In verse 14, we
find that 'we' beheld His glory on His becoming flesh. It is this wonder to
which John is sent to bear a witness, to which John 1 addresses it exposure;
although it is of course true that this same Christ was present in the world
before this, even at the creation, as the Word. That however merely amplifies
the staggering sequence of the thrust from John. THOUGH that was His eminence,
THIS is His intimacy, purpose and program for us men.
The definable
event however adequately and actively emphasised is this: that
1) THI