But my people would not hearken to my voice; and
Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and
they walked in their own counsels. Oh
that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! I
should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their
adversaries (Ps. 81:11–14)
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
One proponent of common grace and the well-meant offer interprets this
passage thus:
“God’s original revealed intention/purpose/desire of blessing Israel was
frustrated because they refused to obey Him. Thus, what God intended, He did
not do. Also, the temporal, physical blessings of Canaan were types of heavenly
spiritual blessings and salvation. If God intended the former, which was
frustrated, He also intended the latter which was frustrated, according to His
revealed will, Israel's rebellion fulfilling God’s secret, mysterious,
irresistible and never-frustrated eternal decree.”
(I)
Rev. Angus Stewart
The idea that “God’s original revealed
intention/purpose/desire of blessing Israel was frustrated because they refused
to obey Him” sounds a lot like the dispensationalists who believe that Christ
was frustrated by the Jews who rejected the offer of an earthly political
kingdom.
Does God really have intentions that He does not
realise? (RE: “Thus, what God intended,
He did not do … Also, the temporal,
physical blessings of Canaan were types of heavenly spiritual blessings and
salvation. If God intended the former, which was frustrated, He also intended
the latter which was frustrated, according to His revealed will, Israel’s
rebellion fulfilling God's secret, mysterious, irresistible and
never-frustrated eternal decree.)
What a lot of frustrations! The ever-blessed,
frustrated God!
John Owen on this passage writes: “That desires and
wishing should properly be ascribed unto God is exceedingly opposite to his
all-sufficiency and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than
he hath eyes, ears, and hands.”
----------------------------------------------------
(II)
John Gerstner (1914-1996)
[Source:
Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A
Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991),
p. 129]
There is no question at all that He can desire
certain things, and these things which He desires He possesses and enjoys in
Himself eternally. Otherwise, He would not be the ever-blessed God. The Godhead
desires each Person in the Godhead and enjoys each eternally. The Godhead also
desires to create, and He (though He creates in time) by creating enjoys so
doing eternally. Otherwise, He would be eternally bereft of a joy He presently
possesses and would have increased in joy if He later possessed it—both of
which notions are impossible. He would thereby have changed (which is also
impossible) and would have grown in the wisdom of a new experience (which is blasphemous
to imagine). If God’s very blessedness means the oneness of His desire and His
experience, is not our question (whether He could desire what He does not
desire) rhetorical? Not only would He otherwise be bereft of some blessedness
which would reduce Him to finitude, but He would be possessed of some
frustration which would not only bereave Him of some blessedness, but would
manifestly destroy all blessedness. This is clearly the case because His
blessedness would be mixed with infinite regret. Our God would be the
ever-miserable, ever-blessed God. His torment in the eternal damnation of
sinners would be as exquisite as it is everlasting. He would actually suffer
infinitely more than the wicked. Indeed, He would Himself be wicked because He
would have sinfully desired what His omniscience would have told Him He could
never have. But why continue to torture ourselves? God, if He could be
frustrated in His desires, simply would not be God.
----------------------------------------------------
(III)
(III)
John Owen (1616-1683)
(a)
[Source: “God’s Expostulations,” in The Works of John Owen (Great Britain: Banner, 1967), vol. 10,
pp. 400-401, emphasis added]
[The Arminians argue thus] God’s
earnest expostulations, contendings, charges, and protestations, even to such
as whereof many perished, Romans 9:27; Isaiah 10:22. As, to instance:—‘O that
there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me,’ etc., ‘that it
might be well with them!’ Deuteronomy 5:29. ‘What could have been done more to
my vineyard, that I have not done in it?’ etc., Isaiah 5:4, 5. ‘What iniquity
have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?’ Jeremiah 2:5.
‘Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness? wherefore say my
people, We are lords; we will come no more unto thee?’ verse 31. ‘O my people,
what have I done unto thee? wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me,’
Micah 6:3. ‘How often would I have gathered,’ etc., ‘and ye would not!’ Matthew
23:37. ‘O that my people had hearkened unto me!’ etc., ‘I should soon have
subdued their enemies,’ etc., Psalm 81:13, 14. ‘Because I have called, and ye
refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded,’ etc., Proverbs
1:24-31. ‘Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,’ etc.,
Romans 1:21, 28. ‘Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man,’ etc., ‘Thou, after
thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath,’ etc.,
Romans 2:1, 5. The Christian, I hope, will reply against God, and say, Thou
never meantest us good; there was no ransom given for us, no atonement made for
us, no good done us, no mercy shown us,—nothing, in truth, whereby we might
have been saved, nothing but an empty show, a bare pretense.’ But if any should
reason so evilly, yet shall not such answers stand.
Ans. To
this collection of expostulations I shall very briefly answer with some few
observations, manifesting of how little use it is to the business in hand ...
Not that I deny that there is
sufficient matter of expostulation with sinners about the blood of
Christ and the ransom paid thereby, that
so the elect may be drawn and wrought upon to faith and repentance, and
believers more and more endeared to forsake all ungodliness and worldly lusts,
to live unto him who died for them, and that others may be left more
inexcusable; only for the present there
are no such expostulations here expressed, nor can any be found holding out the
purpose and intention of God in Christ towards them that perish ...
Fourthly, It is confessed, I hope by all, that there are none of those things
for the want whereof God expostulateth with the sons of men, but that he could,
if it so seemed good before him, effectually work them in their hearts, at
least, by the exceeding greatness of his power: so that these things cannot be declarative of his purpose, which he might, if
he pleased, fulfill; “for who hath resisted his will,” Romans 9:19.
Fifthly, That desires and wishings
should properly be ascribed unto God is exceedingly opposite to his
all-sufficiency and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than
he hath eyes, ears, and hands. These things are to be understood [in a
way befitting to God]. Sixthly, It is evident that all these are nothing but pathetical declarations of our duty
in the enjoyment of the means of grace, strong convictions of the stubborn and
disobedient, with a full justification of the excellency of God’s ways to draw
us to the performance of our duties.
(b)
[Source:
“Of the Attribution of ‘Passions’ and ‘Affections’ Unto God,” in The Works of John Owen (Great Britain: Banner, 1967), vol.
12, pp. 108-110, 114-115, emphasis added]
Question. Are there not, according to the perpetual
tenor of the Scriptures, affections and passions in God, as anger, fury, zeal,
wrath, love, hatred, mercy, grace, jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?
Concerning which he [i.e., Mr. Biddle, the
Socinian] labours to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.
1. The main of Mr. Biddle’s design, in his
questions about the nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct
persons, its omnipresence, prescience, and therein all other infinite
perfections, he endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss by
ascribing to him in the foregoing query a human visible shape, and in this,
human, turbulent affections and passions. Commonly, where men will not ascribe
to the Lord that which is his due, he gives them up to assign that unto him
which he doth abhor, Jeremiah 44:15-17. Neither is it easily determinable
whether be the greater abomination. By the first, the dependence of men upon
the true God is taken off; by the latter, their hope is fixed on a false. This,
on both sides, at present is Mr. B.’s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to
his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is “taken alive
at his pleasure”! 2 Timothy 2:26.
2. The things here assigned to God are ill
associated, if to be understood after the same manner. Mercy and grace we
acknowledge to be attributes of God; the rest mentioned are by none of Mr. B.’s
companions esteemed any other than acts of his will, and those metaphorically
assigned to him.
3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in
the Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and passions
in him as those in us are which are so termed? or whether they are assigned to him and spoken of him metaphorically only,
in reference to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and
answering to the actings of men in whom such affections are, and under the
power whereof they are in those actings?
If the latter be affirmed, then as such an
attribution of them unto God is eminently consistent with all his infinite
perfections and blessedness, so there can be no difference about this question
and the answers given thereunto, all men readily acknowledging that in this
sense the Scripture doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God ...
But this, I fear, will not serve Mr. B.’s turn. The
very phrase and manner of expression used in this question, the plain
intimation that is in the forehead thereof of its author’s going off from the
common received interpretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly
manifest that it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten on God,
and that the affections mentioned are really and properly in him as they are in
us.
This being evident to be his mind and intendment,
as we think his anthropopathism in this query not to come short in folly and
madness of his anthropomorphitism in that foregoing, so I shall proceed to the
removal of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted on.
Mr. B.’s masters tell us “That these affections are vehement commotions of the will of God,
whereby he is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or
earnestly declines and abhors what falls not out gratefully or acceptably to
him.” I shall first speak of them in general, and then to the particulars (some
or all) mentioned by Mr. B.: —
First, In general, that God is perfect and perfectly blessed, I suppose will not be
denied; it cannot be but by denying that he is God (Deuteronomy 32:4; Job
37:16; Romans 1:25; 9:5; 1 Timothy 1:11, 6:16). He that is not perfect in himself and perfectly blessed is not God.
To that which is perfect in any kind
nothing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect nothing is
wanting at all. He who is blessed is perfectly satisfied and filled, and hath
no farther desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself is all-sufficient
for himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself, he is neither perfect
nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God properly (such as before
mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection and blessedness. The
consideration of the nature of these and the like affections will make this
evident.
1. Affections, considered in themselves, have
always an incomplete, imperfect act of the will or volition joined with them.
They are something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul and the
execution of that purpose. The proper actings of affections lie between these
two; that is, in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxious
to such volitions and incomplete actings of the will, besides the general
consideration of his perfections and blessedness premised, is evident from that
manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his works
comprise all his actings. As the Lord hath purposed, so hath he done. “He
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” “Who hath known his mind?
or who hath been his counsellor? Of him, and through him, and to him, are all
things” (Isaiah 14:24; Ephesians 1:11; Romans 11:33-36; Isaiah 40:13-14).
2. They have their dependence on that wherewith he
in whom they are is affected; that is, they owe their rise and continuance to
something without [external or
outside of] him in whom they are. A man’s fear ariseth from that or them of
whom he is afraid; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends. Whatever
affects any man (that is, the stirring of a suitable affection), in all that
frame of mind and soul, in all the volitions and commotions of will which so
arise from thence, he depends on something without
[external or outside of] him. Yea, our being affected with something without [external or outside of]
lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves. Is it thus with God, with him who is I AM? Exodus 3:14. Is he in
dependence upon any thing without [external or outside of] him? Is it not a
most eminent contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other thing?
Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other without [external
to or outside of him] and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our
affections are? “God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his
soul desireth, that he doeth,” Job 23:13.
3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with
change and mutability; yea, he who is
affected properly is really changed; yea, there is no more unworthy
change or alteration than that which is accompanied with passion, as is the
change that is wrought by the affections ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet,
considerate alteration is far less inglorious and unworthy than that which is
done in and with passion. Hitherto we
have taken God upon his testimony, that he is the “LORD, and he changeth not,”
Malachi 3:6; that “with him there is neither change nor shadow of turning;”—it
seems, like the worms of the earth, he varieth every day.
4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God do
eminently denote impotence; which, indeed, on this account, both by Socinians
and Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him
affectionately and with commotion of will to desire many things in their own
nature not impossible, which yet he cannot accomplish or bring about (of which
I have elsewhere spoken); yea, it will appear that the most of the affections
ascribed to God by Mr B., taken in a proper sense, are such as are actually
ineffectual, or commotions through disappointments, upon the account of
impotency or defect of power.
Corol. To ascribe
affections properly to God is to make him weak, imperfect, dependent,
changeable, and impotent ...
(1.) Where no cause of stirring up affections or
passions can have place or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted;
for to what end should we suppose that whereof there can be no use to eternity?
If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up or acted, is it
not impossible any such should be in him? The causes stirring up all affections
are the access of some good desired, whence joy, hope, desire, etc, have their
spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear,
sorrow, anger, repentance, and the like. Now, if no good can be added to God, whence should joy and desire be
stirred up in him? if no evil
can befall him, in himself or any of his concernments, whence should he have
fear, sorrow, or repentance? Our goodness extends not to him; he hath
no need of us or our sacrifices, Psalm 16:2, 50:8-10; Job 35:6-8. “Can a man be
profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is it any
pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that
thou makest thy ways perfect?” chap. 22:2, 3.
(2.) The apostle tells us that God is “Blessed for
ever,” Romans 9:5; “He is the blessed and only Potentate,” 1 Timothy 6:15; “God
all-sufficient,” Genesis 17:1. That
which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to
be ascribed to God; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be
blessed, is he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear,
sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like? Doth not fear take off from absolute
blessedness? Grant that God’s fear doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so,
he is less blessed than he was before and than he is after his fear ceaseth.
When he hopes, is he not short in happiness of that condition which he attains
in the enjoyment of what he hoped for? and is he not lower when he is
disappointed and falls short of his expectation? Did ever the heathens
speak with more contempt of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some
men heightened them to fancy themselves to be like God, without passions or
affections, Psalm 50:21; being not able to abide in their attempt against their
own sense and experience, it is now endeavored to make God like to us, in
having such passions and affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to
speak unto. Those who have written on the attributes of God,—his
self-sufficiency and blessedness, simplicity, immutability, etc.,—are ready to
tender farther satisfaction to them who shall desire it.
----------------------------------------------------
(IV)
David Dickson
(1583-1663)
[Commentary on Psalms,
vol. 2, p. 57, emphasis added]
This lamenting of God for his
people’s misery, is
borrowed from the manner of men, lamenting the misery which
their disobedient children have brought upon themselves; and is not to be taken so, as if there were in God any passion or perturbation, or miserable lamentation: but this speech is to be
conceived, as other like speeches in Scripture, which are borrowed from the affections of men, and are framed to move some holy affection in men,
suitable to that affection from which the Lord taketh the similitude; and so, O that my people had hearkened unto
me, serveth to move his people (who would hear this expression), to repent
and lament their not hearkening unto God; and to study in all time to come to
be more obedient unto him, even as they would eschew the curse which came upon
misbelieving and disobedient Israel, and as they desired to obtain the
blessings whereof carnal Israelites came short, and deprived themselves.
----------------------------------------------------
(V)
Herman Hoeksema
(1886-1965)
In connection with this text, we may take note of
the fact, first of all, that surely no one can find in it a general and well-meant
offer of grace and salvation. In the first place, the text is after all not
general; and secondly, it contains no offer.
The text is not general: for it speaks of “My
people” and of “Israel.” And now you may turn and twist as you will, but in that
expression “My people” there is always the idea of election. The term always
indicates that God’s people are His peculiar possession, chosen by Him as His
inheritance and by Him delivered and formed, in order that they should show
forth His praises and tell His wonders. The subject here therefore is not all
men, but God’s people. And in that there is precisely nothing general.
And there is no mention of an offer. Not at all.
Indeed there follow upon this text various promises of God, altogether conditional
and dependent upon these verses. The Lord would have subdued their enemies,
would have made them rule over those who hated them, would have fed them with
honey out of the rock and with the finest of the wheat. But of an offer you do
not read so much as a word.
Read the text in connection with the verses which
follow it, and then the following is simply stated here:
That God’s people would not obey the voice of the
Lord and would none of Him.
That He therefore gave them over unto their own
hearts’ lust and let them walk in their own counsels.
That this would have been altogether different if
God’s people had walked in His ways and had hearkened to His voice. Then God
would have subdued their enemies before them and fed them with the finest of
the wheat and with honey from the rock.
This last you can also state as follows: God
promises His salvation to those who walk in His ways and obey His voice. And
the latter are never any others than the elect. What you have, therefore, in
these verses is nothing else than a pronouncement of curse upon those who do
not walk in His ways and a particular promise for those who do walk in His
ways. This is nothing more than a sure promise of God for God’s obedient
people.
There are in the text two difficulties.
The first problem is expressed in the question: but
how can “God’s people” be apostate so that the Lord gives them up unto their
own heart’s lust? That is what the text states. And the second problem lies in
that complaint of God about their apostasy. The Lord appears to bemoan the fact
that His people would none of Him. But how can this be, seeing that He alone is
the one who inclines the hearts and is able to draw to Himself with cords of
irresistible grace and love that people whom He has given over to their own
counsels?
In order to find a solution, we must, in the first
place, maintain what we have already said: that “My people” always points to
God’s gracious election and redemption of His own, whereby they are His
peculiar possession.
In the second place, we must understand that this
elect people are in the old dispensation, from the viewpoint of the psalm.
Israel as a nation. God had chosen Israel. The holy line ran through Israel.
Israel was His people in the unique sense of the word. He loved Israel with an
eternal love. He had delivered Israel out of the bondage of Egypt with a mighty
arm. Such is the viewpoint of the psalm. It points to that history of a
wonderful deliverance of Israel out of Egypt.
In the third place, we must keep in view the fact
that you will never reach a solution and will never be able to understand the
words of this psalm, unless you also keep in mind that the term “My people,”
also with respect to Israel, did not apply to every Israelite head for head and
soul for soul. Not all were Israel who were of Israel. No, the children of the
promise were counted for the seed. There was a reprobate shell in Israel as
well as an elect kernel. And that reprobate shell was sometimes very great.
That wicked, carnal Israel often held the upper hand and dominated.
Nevertheless, Israel remains “God’s people.” The Lord calls the people as a
whole, in the organic sense of the word, His people, according to the remnant
of the election of grace. And this remnant was always present and also always
constituted the essential element in Israel. Through this it comes about that
at some points in Israel’s history, it departs from the Lord, does not obey
Him, wickedly rises up against Him.
Here, therefore, you have the answer to the
question how the psalm can say that “My people” would none of me. But also then
the Lord still loves that people for the elect’s sake. When, however, the
reprobate dominated, then the entire nation was chastised and punished. When
disobedient Israel rises up in rebellion against the Lord in the wilderness,
then not only are many thousands cut down in the wilderness, but then also the
elect element suffers, then the whole nation wanders in the wilderness for
forty years, then the enemies rule over them, then they suffer hunger and thirst
and presently go into captivity. Also the elect suffer. Therefore the Lord can
call out complainingly in this psalm: “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me,
and Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and
turned my hand against their adversaries,” etc. It is the love to His own that
speaks here, nothing else.
----------------------------------------------------
(VI)
William Young
(1918-2015)
Objection is raised against the confusions noted below that
have repeatedly led to the compromising and denial of the sovereign grace of
God.
1. The above remark suggests that the ascription of such a desire to God is often not simply a way of expressing the will of command, but is supposed to be something behind the command, a will in-between the command and the decree, a weak though ardent wish that can be frustrated and is frustrated in the case of many. Surely, no Calvinist can desire to ascribe such a desire to the Most High, although the devotees of free will have invented an antecedent will in God distinct from the consequent will of the final decree. If one cares, like John Howe, to speak of a complacential will, and means only that God is pleased whenever His precepts are obeyed, no objection need be raised as long as there is not confusion with the supposed antecedent will under the cover of the word “desire.”
2. A second source of confusion is the failure to recognize the use of anthropopathic language in Scripture passages that represent God’s actions as if they expressed passions like our own. No Christian holding the Bible to be free of contradiction can suppose that the Lord literally repents or regrets His own work of creation (Genesis 6:6-7). The same way of speaking after the manner of men applies to God’s desire as expressed in Psalm 81:14. It is a gross abuse of language when, not as homiletical hyperbole, but as a dogmatic formulation, human passions, often called emotions, are ascribed to God. Such a view is in conflict with the Confession of Faith, which declares God to be “a most pure Spirit ... without body, parts, or passions,” based on Acts 14:11, 15. The error is intensified when a questionable threefold faculty psychology is misapplied further, by representing God in the image of man, with emotions as well as intellect and will, and then arguing as if an emotional desire caused the will which is revealed in the free offer. Such prying into the secret things along with the obscuring of what has been revealed ought to be eschewed by all who reverently tremble at the Word of God.
3. That the desire is not simply meant as an anthropomorphic mode of emphasizing the revealed will becomes evident when the assertion is made that it is an instance of a deep paradox or antinomy not resolvable by logic. In the fact that God has decreed to save only some, but has commanded the gospel to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all, there is no contradiction, but simply the difference between God’s decree and His preceptive will. Why such a command is given may well be beyond our powers to fathom at least in this life, but there need not be an apparent, much less a real contradiction to those who are well instructed by the Word and Spirit of God. But to search behind the revealed will in the gospel offer for a divine inclination to save those who have been foreordained to everlasting wrath, can only appear to be ascribing a real contradiction in the will of God. The common evasion that this is only an apparent contradiction to us but not a real contradiction to God is nothing other than Kierkegaard’s own thesis as to the absolute paradox. It is not the historic position of Reformed theology.
----------------------------------------------------
(VII)
Rev. Matthew
Winzer
[Source:
“Murray on the Free Offer: A Review,” in The
Blue Banner, vol. 9, issues
10-12 (October/December 2000).]
The appeal to these texts really proves too much.
For the optative mood, while it may be restricted to a simple desire or wish,
oftentimes carries the connotation of longing after, and that in a mournful way
when it is an unfulfilled longing, as the comment on Ps. 81:13 indicates.
Hence, the texts beckon the reader to understand the expressions as God
speaking after the manner of men. As David Dickson has qualified, the lamenting
of God for His people’s misery “is not to be taken so, as if there were in God
any passion or perturbation, or miserable lamentation: but this speech is to be
conceived, as other like speeches in Scripture, which are borrowed from the
affections of men, and are framed to move some holy affection in men, suitable
to that affection from which the Lord taketh the similitude.”38 Such
expressions, then, are intended to instruct the hearers as to what their
passion ought to be, not to indicate that God is characterised by such passions
Himself.
When understood in this way, the covenantal language
of the text comes to the fore, thereby enabling the interpreter to see the true
intent of such passages. That these verses ought to be understood covenantally
is clear from their context and terminology. Deut. 5:29 is Moses’ rehearsal of
the covenant ratified at Mt. Sinai (Horeb in the book of Deuteronomy) for the
benefit of the new generation which is about to enter into the promised land.
32:29 is the song of Moses which calls upon the heavens and earth to act as
witnesses in the covenantal relationship which the Israelites bear to the Lord.
It abounds in metaphorical language for this very reason. Nobody takes the
language literally with regard to the Lord being a Rock, verse 4, or fearing
the wrath of His enemies, verse 27. Why, then, is a literal import
inconsistently suggested for the optative mood in verse 29? Both Ps. 81:13 and
Isa. 48:17 refer to the hearers in the covenantal designation of “Israel;” with
the former of these adding the words, “my people,” and the latter the words,
“thy God.” And both similarly proceed to recount the promises of the covenant
which the hearers have failed to become partakers of through their
disobedience; the former speaking of the subduing of Israel’s enemies (Ps.
81:14), and the latter of the multiplication and preservation of her people
(Isa. 48:18).
It is the covenantal nature of these speeches which
required the adoption (ad extra) of human thoughts and affections on the
part of God in condescension to His people. In the covenant, God identifies Himself
and His cause with the welfare and cause of His people. The enemies of His
people become His enemies, the successes of His people become His successes,
and the failures of His people become His failures, as the language of Deut.
32:27 signifies. The Almighty power of God becomes conditioned on the people’s
obedience or disobedience. At the building of the tabernacle, and later of the
temple, His omnipresence becomes confined to the place where He puts His Name.
Even His knowledge is sometimes represented as being limited to this special
relationship which He has established with His people, and He is portrayed as
repenting and changing His mind when He discovers that His people have acted in
this or that way.
Such language does not reflect upon the nature of
God, but only indicates the nature of the covenant relation with which God
condescends to act in accord. Given the unchangeable and unconditional
perfection of the Almighty, it is obvious that these types of Scriptural
references are to be understood as His condescension to the weakness of man’s
capacity, as when the apostle spoke after the manner of men because of the
infirmity of his hearers’ flesh, Rom. 6:19. Thus, when God represents Himself
as repenting, or of being unable to do anything more to procure the people’s
obedience, or expresses a desire for that which is contrary to
His purpose, the language is to be understood anthropopathically, not
literally.
Furthermore, the covenantal context of the speeches
should enable us to see the error in the report’s conclusion that God has not
sovereignly willed what He here desires. The apostle to the Gentiles informs us
that to the Israelites belong “the covenants, and the giving of the law, and
the service of God, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). His purpose was to assure his
readers that the failure of certain individual Israelites does not mean that
“the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are
of Israel” (verse 6). Divine inspiration here teaches an infallible rule for
interpreting both the Old Testament promises to Israel and the divine
expression of desire that those promises be fulfilled. It is that these
promises were made to Israel corporately, not individually.
They were made to Israel as elect, as Paul’s subsequent teaching on election
and reprobation demonstrates. So that the one in whom these promises are not
fulfilled cannot be regarded as belonging to the true Israel, for “the children
of the promise are counted for the seed” (verse 8). Thus, the divine expression
of desire for His commandments to be obeyed and for His promises to come to
fruition is not an unfulfilled desire at all. For God undertakes on behalf of
elect Israel to put His laws into their minds and to write them in their
hearts, so that the promise to be their God and to bless them as His people
comes to fruition (Heb. 8:10).
So the report’s conclusion from these texts is
inadmissible on two accounts. 1. Because the language employed is not to be
regarded literally, but figuratively, in accord with its covenantal context, as
God speaking after the manner of men; and 2. Because the expression of desire
is not with reference to a matter that shall be left unfulfilled, for God’s
sovereign grace ensures that His word of promise is not rendered ineffectual.
---------------
FOOTNOTE:
38. David Dickson, Commentary on the Psalms (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1985), p. 51.
----------------------------------------------------
(VIII)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
[“Commentary
upon the Book of Psalms,” in Calvin’s
Commentaries, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989),
2:323, emphasis added.]
The Hebrew particle ... is not to be understood as
expressing a condition, but a wish; and therefore God, I have no doubt, like a man weeping and lamenting,
cries out, O the wretchedness of this people in wilfully refusing to have their
best interests carefully provided for.
----------------------------------------------------
(IX)
More to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment