Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth
thee to repentance? (Rom. 2:4).
COMMON GRACE/FREE
OFFER ARGUMENT:
The argument that is made from this text is
that God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering are shown to all men and
express God’s desire to save them; yet they despise these manifestations of
God’s love and grace towards them. The point of the defenders of the
“well-meant gospel offer” is that the text speaks of God’s attributes,
particularly His goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, as indicative of
God’s love for all men, His grace towards them and His desire to save them. Louis Berkhof
argues this very point in his book written in defense of common grace.
(I)
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
(a)
[Source:
Common Grace Considered (2019
edition), pp. 342-344]
The
argument that is made from this text is that God’s goodness, forbearance and
longsuffering are shown to all men and express God’s desire to save them; yet
they despise these manifestations of God’s love and grace towards them. The
point of the defenders of the “well-meant gospel offer” is that the text speaks
of God’s attributes, particularly His goodness, forbearance and longsuffering,
as indicative of God’s love for all
men, His grace towards them and His desire to save them. Louis Berkhof
argues this very point in his book written in defense of common grace.
There
are two things wrong with this interpretation. The first is that it clearly
places the final decision for man’s salvation in man’s hands. I have objected
to this implication of the defense of common grace repeatedly, but the use of
this text as proof that God desires to save all and thus to throw the final
decision in man’s hands is blatantly argued here. There is absolutely no way
one can hold to such a position without becoming Arminian in the fullest sense
of the word.
The
second thing wrong with this interpretation is that it changes the reading of
the text. No man has a right to do this. The interpretation offered by the
defenders of the “well-meant offer” deliberately change the text to read
something which it does not say. These defenders say the text reads: “… not
knowing the goodness of God desires to
lead thee to repentance [but does not succeed in its desire].” But the text says, “… not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance [and actually does so.”
This
alteration in the words of the text is inexcusable to a sincere student of
Scripture, and shows a willingness to twist Scripture’s clear words in the
interests of making a case for one’s own notions.
I
am assuming, of course, that no one who uses this text as proof that God wants
all men to be saved, actually believes that all men are saved, and that no one
goes to hell. A universalist who believes that no one ever goes to hell is some
other creature whose arguments are not relevant to the subject of the
“well-meant offer.” A defender of the “well-meant offer” believes that many go
to hell, even though God loves them and wants desperately their salvation.
One
can, therefore, appeal to this text in support of the “well-meant gospel offer”
and give it the meaning which the defenders of the “well-meant offer” give it only if one is a universalist, believing that all men will eventually be
saved.
But
no argument over a wrong interpretation of a text in Scripture is successfully
refuted without a statement as to its true
meaning.
The
apostle is paving the way for his great teaching of justification by faith
alone, without the works of the law. He is demonstrating that justification on
the basis of the works of the law is an absolute impossibility. The keeping of
the law cannot justify a man; it cannot justify any man. It cannot justify the Gentile;
it cannot justify the Jew. The reason
is that all are sinners under the just condemnation of God. Thus the whole
human race is referred to in chapters 1 and 2, and in chapter 2, Paul directly
addresses all men with this condemnation by using the general term “man” (vv.
1, 3).
All
men despise God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering. They even despise
God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering when they know that these attributes lead to repentance, and thus salvation.
This
fact that God’s goodness leads to repentance does not mean that God wants
all men to be saved; nor does it mean that, in fact, God’s goodness always
does lead every man to repentance and salvation. But it does mean that, in
fact, in the case of some, it is
God’s goodness that leads to repentance, a truth that is evident on every page
of Holy Writ. When the gospel is preached, the elect are brought to repentance.
The wicked are witnesses of this great goodness of God that does save. But even
though they see this, they still despise this goodness of God.
And,
of course, we also despise God’s
goodness, for we are included under the dire things Paul says about men. Thus
behind the text stands the truth that God’s attributes, goodness, forbearance
and longsuffering, are revealed in all His works, but men despise them. They are particularly revealed in His salvation of
some. When some are led to repentance, it is the goodness of God that leads them to repentance, and not their
works. Hence, the direct address is used here: “… the goodness of God leadeth
thee to repentance.” But they are nevertheless universally despised.
The
text becomes very important, therefore, for the doctrine of total depravity;
and this truth in turn prepares the way for the great truth of sovereign
grace—namely, that God justifies the elect through faith in Christ, apart from
any works which man performs.
(b)
[Source:
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,
Vol. 6, No. 2 (April, 1993) pp. 43-44]
Romans
2:4 is also said to teach that longsuffering is an attribute of God towards the
ungodly. The passage itself reads: “Or despisest thou the riches of his
goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance?”
But
there are obvious problems with this interpretation. We call attention to the
following.
1)
Nowhere does the text say that the reprobate wicked are the objects of God’s
longsuffering. The text merely asserts that men despise God’s longsuffering. It
can perhaps be argued that if men despise such longsuffering, this must mean
that they are the objects of it. But such is not necessarily the case. It is
surely possible that the wicked despise this attribute of God even though they
are not the objects of it. I may, e.g., despise the wealth of a man without
possessing that wealth myself. Or I may despise marital love in general, and
the specific instance of it I see in my neighbor without myself being married.
This is the more plausible in connection with the longsuffering of God when we
consider that the wicked always despise God with all their hearts. And, in
despising God, they despise also all His attributes.
2)
The argument that this text supports common grace is based on the statement
that God’s goodness leads to repentance. But surely this does not prove an
attitude of goodness on the part of God to all. The text, so interpreted,
proves too much. The text does not say that God’s goodness wants to lead all men to repentance. Nor does it say that God’s
goodness attempts to lead all men to
repentance. It emphatically states that God’s goodness does lead to repentance. The interpretation of those who hold that
this goodness is shown to all men proves too much. It says more than even the
most passionate defenders of common grace want to say.
3)
The passage is addressed to “man” in general: “Therefore thou art inexcusable,
O man ...” (v. 1). “And thinkest thou this, O man ...” (v. 3). Paul is here
including all men, whether Jew or Gentile, under the severe judgment of God.
When
all are included under the just judgment of God, then does God’s grace towards
His people become manifest. The following verses make that clear.
But
after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath
against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who
will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient
continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal
life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every
soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but
glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God (vv. 5-11).
Thus
the point is that Jew and Gentile are treated alike, for all come under God’s
just judgment. But to the contentious and those who do not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, comes wrath—whether they are Jew or
Gentile. And to those who work good, whether Jew or Gentile, comes blessing.
These (that “worketh good”) are those, among the general “O man,” who are led
to repentance by the goodness of God.
Rev. Angus Stewart
[Source:
The Longsuffering of God: A Survey
of God’s Longsuffering throughout Scripture;
emphasis added.]
This
does not refer to a “goodness” or “longsuffering” of God for the reprobate.
First, the text does not say that Jehovah’s goodness or longsuffering merely tries (but fails) to lead the reprobate to repentance; it says that
“the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.”
Second, the verse speaks not of merely a bit of common grace for the reprobate,
as some allege, but of “the riches of his goodness.”
Romans
2:4 is not addressed to man as elect or reprobate but to generic and undifferentiated man. Thus he is addressed in
the context as “O man” (1, 3). If we come to differentiation, God’s
“forbearance” is for the reprobate, as in Romans 9:22; His longsuffering is for
the elect (Luke 18:7) and is always salvific (II Pet. 3:15).
http://commongracedebate.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-longsuffering-of-god.html
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
(a)
[Source: The Protestant Reformed Churches in America (1947),
pp. 338-339]
21. What interpretation did synod evidently favor
of Romans 2:4?
The thoroughly Arminian interpretation,
that God intended to lead man to repentance by the manifestation of His
goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, but that man refused and, despising
these riches of the goodness of God, perished. This is also the interpretation
of Prof. L Berkhof in his booklet on the Three Points.
22. What would you say of this interpretation
from an exegetical viewpoint?
That it is quite impossible and wholly
contrary to the plain words of the text. The text does not say that it is the intention of God, in the manifestation
of the divine virtues enumerated, to lead to repentance, but that it actually leads to repentance. The apostle plainly
writes: “not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.”
This is not to be changed into: intendeth
to lead thee to repentance.
23. But how, then would you interpret the text?
Paul is addressing Man. (See vv. 1 and
3) Now, the evident question is, how Paul could write of the same Man, that
God’s goodness leads him to
repentance, while on the other hand, he does not know this, despises this
goodness and gathers unto himself treasures of wrath. It is very lucid that
this could not possibly be asserted of the same individual. For if the goodness
of God leadeth a man to repentance, he does not despise that goodness, for if
he despises the goodness of god, that goodness does not lead him to repentance.
The two are mutually exclusive. Hence, the apostle is not addressing an
individual, but a class. “Man” must be understood collectively. It is true, that the goodness of God leadeth Man to
repentance, that is, the elect man.
It is also true, that Man despiseth this goodness of God, and that he gathers
for himself treasures of wrath, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth
man to repentance. This last predicate is true of the ungodly reprobate.
(b)
[Source: “Despising
God’s Goodness,” The Standard Bearer, 15 April, 1997,
vol. 73]
The heart of Romans 2:4-5 is undoubtedly expressed in the words, the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance. This is the undeniable truth around which the entire text
in all its details is really grouped. It is the one certainty that can always
be applied and always stands, to which there is never an exception: the
goodness of God leadeth to repentance.
For this reason we must not change this statement, so as to fit our
notion as to what the goodness of God ought to be. Poison kills; fire burns;
bread nourishes; so, the goodness of God leads to repentance. We must not say,
or think, or attempt to change the meaning of this statement into something like
this: the goodness of God likes to
lead you to repentance. This is not true. Or, the goodness of God tries to lead you to repentance. For
this is not true either. Nor is it the meaning of the text. But we must leave
this word exactly as it is, and say—just as we say, “poison kills,” “fire
burns,” and “bread nourishes”—“the gaoodness of God leads to repentance.”
It does this always. We may know it or not, it makes no difference—the
goodness of God leads to repentance. You may take poison or you may not, it
makes no difference—poison kills. You may put your hand in the fire or you may
not, it makes no difference—fire burns. You may feel the power of the goodness
of God or you may not, it makes no difference—the goodness of God leads to
repentance.
But there are those who despise that goodness of God. Despising the
goodness of God, they treasure up unto themselves wrath. It is to those that
the apostle calls our attention in the text.
Its Meaning
The apostle is still addressing the man of verse 1. He is not addressing
any particular class. He is not addressing the Jew. Nor is the Jew excluded.
The apostle has in mind to apply what he has said to the Jews in a special
sense. But here he is addressing man. He is speaking in the singular. This man,
the apostle has pictured in a very peculiar and realistic light. That is, he
has pictured him just as he is. He has pictured this man as judging and
condemning others, while doing the same things himself. He condemns the liar, and
he lies himself. He condemns the thief, and he steals himself. When he condemns
the backbiter, he becomes a backbiter himself. This is characteristic of sinful
man. God lets him do it in order to make him say that he knows the righteous
judgment of God, so that he will be without excuse in the day of judgment.
Now the apostle asks this man (and this is the connection with verse 1),
“How do you explain your attitude? How do you come to assume the attitude in
which you condemn in others what you do yourself?”
How must this be explained? The apostle knows of but two
possibilities. The first possibility is expressed in that first question in
verse 3: “Thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things,
and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” Is this the
explanation? If this is the case, his attitude is explained.
Or—and this is the other possibility—is this attitude rooted in the sinful
contempt in which you say, “I know that I shall be in the judgment, but I don't
care”? As verse 4 puts it, “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness ...
not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
In the original, four words are used, whereas in our English translation
of verse 4, there are but three. The text, therefore, should be read this way:
“Or despisest thou the loving-kindness, forbearance, long-suffering, and
goodness of God?” As to the meaning of these various terms, they are so related
that “goodness” includes all the other virtues. God’s loving-kindness is His
goodness manifest. God’s forbearance is His goodness manifest. God’s
long-suffering is His goodness manifest.
What is God’s goodness? In the first place, God’s goodness
is that virtue of God by which He is in Himself infinite perfection. This is
the background of all other goodnesses. God’s goodness does not mean that He is
our benefactor (i.e., that He “bestows good upon us”). God’s goodness means, in
the first place, that He is good in the sense of perfection. Because God is
good in Himself, He also does good. God does good to all creatures. There is no
exception. He does good to all creatures, organically considered and
individually considered. God always does good. He does good to the wicked and
to the righteous. When God blesses the righteous, He does good. When God curses
the wicked, He does good. God would not do good, if He blessed the wicked. God
is in Himself good and the overflowing fountain of all goodnesses.
For this reason there is in the text mention of a threefold manifestation
of God’s goodness. These three are also related. God’s loving-kindness is
the first manifestation of His goodness. God’s loving-kindness is His inmost
desire to bless the righteous. The goodness of God so works and reveals itself
that there is in God the eternal desire to bless the righteous. You can never
say that of God’s attitude toward the wicked, however. Then He would not be
good. There is in God never a will, a desire, to make the wicked happy. We must
understand this. The central thought of the text is to emphasize that it is
impossible for God to bless anyone, unless he comes to repentance. As long as
he does not come to repentance, and as long as he despises and does not know
the goodness of God, he cannot taste the blessing of God. We must understand,
therefore, that the loving-kindness of God is that manifestation of God’s
goodness according to which it is His eternal desire to bless the righteous.
This is why the natural man despises that loving-kindness of God. Man will
never despise a general grace. But he despises that God blesses the righteous.
The other two terms, God’s long-suffering
and forbearance, are again
manifestations of the goodness of God as revealed in time. God’s long-suffering is
His desire to deliver His suffering people, but His waiting until all things
are ripe. If I have my child on the operating table and that child begs me to
stop, but I keep right on cutting into the live flesh until the operation is
completed, I am long-suffering over that child. So, God’s long-suffering is His purpose finally to bring His people to glory,
while permitting them to suffer until the time is ripe.
God’s forbearance is the antithesis of long-suffering.
It is His will to destroy the wicked in the day of judgment, while allowing them
to prosper until that day. God’s forbearance is this: I have a man in my home
who eats my bread, drinks my water, wears my clothes, and sleeps in my bed.
That man ignores me and abuses my children. I forbear from putting him out of
my house until the time is ripe. This is God’s forbearance. The forbearance and long-suffering of God are manifest.
The apostle asks the sinner, “Despisest thou the loving-kindness, and
forbearance, and long-suffering of God; not knowing that the goodness of God
leadeth thee to repentance?” To “despise” a thing presupposes that we come into
contact with it to the extent that we know that which we despise. The apostle
means, therefore, that in some way, to some extent, man always comes into
contact with this threefold manifestation of God, the heart of which is that
the Lord blesses the righteous.
Despisest thou this?
It is emphatically in the church, where the goodness of God is bestowed,
that the goodness of God is despised.
To despise a thing is to think nothing of it. To despise a thing is to
judge it worthless, not to want it. Therefore, when the testimony is, “The Lord
blesses the righteous,” we simply ignore it and continue to walk in sin. Do you
not see that the sinner, going on in his own way, despises the goodness of God?
Its Cause
How is this possible? The apostle says that the deepest cause is in the
sinner’s impenitent heart. “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart,” the
text says. The heart is the center of a man’s life from a spiritual point of
view. From the heart is the life of man as to its spiritual direction. An
impenitent heart is a heart that cannot repent. It is not a heart that does not repent.
An impenitent heart is a heart that cannot repent; neither is
it a heart that cannot be brought to repentance. It is a heart
that cannot repent of itself.
To “repent” is to change, so that our judgment of our own sin is as God’s
judgment of our sin. An impenitent heart is the very opposite. It is a heart
that loves sin, that seeks sin, that walks in sin.
That impenitent heart, the apostle says, is hard. It is not
hardened. It is hard. “After thy hardness,” says the apostle. Hardness is the
characteristic of the impenitent heart. That heart is hard, so that it is not
receptive for repentance. When that impenitent heart sits under the influence
of the word of God, even before that word comes, it makes up its mind not to
repent. An impenitent heart is always hard. It is not that the impenitent heart
is first soft and that gradually that heart hardens. That heart is hard from
the beginning. Every impenitent heart is hard.
It is true that there is a hardening of the heart in a natural way, but
not in the spiritual sense. Even a hard, impenitent heart can become hardened
in a natural way. When first that hard, impenitent heart comes under the
influence of the word of God, there are the pangs of conscience, a certain
fear, a trembling before that word. But under the influence of the goodness of
God, that impenitent heart becomes hardened. We can see, often to our deepest
sorrow, how the impenitent heart becomes hardened. With an impenitent heart,
one does not know that the goodness of God leads to repentance. This is the
immediate result.
The Arminian distortion is that God is good in the sense of being
gracious to all. He is good in the sense that He likes to save all. Because He
likes to save all, He tries to lead all to repentance. When He does so, there
are some who resist that goodness of God. This is the Arminian distortion of
the text.
But this is not the expression of the text. The text does not say, “the
goodness of God tries to lead you to repentance.” The text
makes a statement of fact. The text says that the goodness of God leads you to repentance. It is
impossible, if you leave the text in its context, to elicit from it a general
grace. Instead, it is a general statement of fact: The goodness of God leads to repentance.
This becomes manifest in those who come into contact with this fact. It
is as though I would say, “Don’t you know that fire burns you?”—meaning, of
course, as soon as you come into contact with it. Or, “Don’t you know that
poison kills you?”—meaning, of course, when you come into contact with it. So
the apostle says: “Don’t you know that the goodness of God leads you to
repentance?”—meaning, as soon as you come into contact with it.
The natural man does not know that the goodness of God leads to
repentance. Does he not know the fact? He does. This is not the
meaning. But he does not know it in the sense that he does not experience and
taste that the goodness of God leads to repentance, and in the sense that he
despises it. He despises the goodness of God as it becomes manifest in His
loving-kindness, forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing, in the sense of
not experiencing, that the goodness of God leads to repentance.
Its Result
Is this the case? If it is, then there is but one result: the man who so
despises the goodness of God treasures up wrath against the day of wrath and
judgment.
There comes a day of the revelation of the judgment of God. The passage
warns, “After thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself
wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of
God.” We must not say that there comes a day of the judgment of God. This
judgment is always present. But there comes a day when this judgment shall
be revealed.
This judgment is now frequently covered up. It is so covered up that frequently
we would say that God’s judgment is not righteous. The wicked seem to prosper,
and the righteous are in trouble. We would say that God’s judgment is not
righteous. This judgment is so covered up that men have come to the conclusion
that there is a general grace. God’s judgment is now covered up, but there
comes a day when that cover will be taken off. That is the day of the
revelation of the judgment of God.
That day will be a day of wrath. For whom? For that man. It will be a
day of wrath; that is, it will be a day of nothing but wrath. And that man
treasures up wrath. He lays up wrath as one lays up a sum of money in a bank.
He piles up wrath. He lays up wrath in the bank of God’s judgment. He does that
in all his life. He is always increasing his capital of wrath. He treasures up
wrath against the day of wrath. You may call that “grace” if you please, but
the apostle knows nothing of that.
What shall we say then?
I will conclude with the same words which I started: “The goodness of God
leadeth thee to repentance.” If you have not come to repentance, you have never
known the goodness of God. If in the midst of those men who despise the
goodness of God you become a penitent sinner, what then? Is there any hope? I
am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ: this, the apostle still has in
mind. “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For in it is revealed
the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ Jesus.” The righteous
shall live by faith. Living by faith, they say this: “Being justified by faith,
we have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1).
Herman Veldman (1908-1997)
[Source: The Standard
Bearer,
vol. 25, no. 21 (Sept. 1, 1949), p. 493]
This
text is also superficially quoted in support of a general goodness or
longsuffering of God. Addressing the wicked, unrepentant Jews, concerning whom
the apostle declares in the following verse that “after thy hardness and
impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” the apostle tells us in verse 4
that they despise the riches of God’s goodness and longsuffering and
forbearance, not realizing that this goodness of God leads unto repentance. We
should notice, however, that the text does not teach that the goodness of the
Lord would lead these wicked Jews unto repentance. It does teach us, however,
that the goodness of God leads to
repentance. Not that it would lead
us, but that it actually leads us
unto repentance. If, therefore, we take this text at its face value, and apply
this particular word of God to all men, head for head, then surely it declares
too much. The apostle, then, would have us believe that the goodness actually
leads these people to repentance; and, yet, in the following verse we are told
that they are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of the revelation
of the righteous judgment of the Lord. This “common grace” interpretation of
the text is, therefore, obviously impossible.
The
true interpretation of Romans 2:4 must be as follows. The goodness of God leads
men to repentance. This is an undeniable fact. However, these wicked Jews did
not know this. This does not mean that they were not acquainted with this fact as such, but that they did not know this in the spiritual, experiential
sense of the word. The riches of God’s goodness, longsuffering and forbearance,
they despised. We must bear in mind that these riches were revealed unto them. Organically they belonged to the church of God
in the midst of the world. Hence, they were fully acquainted with the riches of
this goodness of the Lord. It had been proclaimed unto them time and again,
and, besides, that the people of God were the objects of this goodness was
known and observed by them. However, they despised this goodness of God,
trampled it under foot, revealed in all their activity that they loved the
darkness rather than the light, and trampled the goodness of God under foot as
swine trample pearls under their feet. In this revelation of God the goodness
of God reveals itself as longsuffering over His people, and as forbearance toward
the ungodly. But the carnal element comes organically into contact with this
goodness of God, which leads unto repentance, despises it and tramples it under
foot, and will be held accountable for their profane attitude toward this
goodness of the Lord, which is only upon the elect, but is also revealed unto
them.
The
longsuffering and forbearance of the Lord have this in common, that both refer
to a Divine restraint, a Divine checking or holding of Himself in check.
However, the longsuffering of God is an activity of Divine love; the
forbearance of the Lord is an activity of Divine wrath. God is longsuffering
toward His people, elected and loved in Christ Jesus. He restrains His desire
to save them out of all the afflictions of their enemies because He seeks their
welfare and would save all the elect even unto the end of time. And the Lord’s
forbearance is toward the reprobate wicked. He restrains His desire, His
passion, to destroy them, because their full measure of iniquity must be
filled, and also because they must serve the elect. Using them as instruments
in His causing of all things to work together for the good and salvation of His
people, He checks Himself, His inner passion, to consume them in His righteous
anger and love for His own, until they shall have served His purpose and
contributed their part in the eternal salvation and glory of His elect church.
Prof. Robert D. Decker
[Source: The Standard
Bearer,
vol. 72, no. 2 (Oct. 15, 1995), p. 35]
The
text does not say that it is the intention
of God to lead to repentance, but that God’s goodness, forbearance, and
longsuffering actually leads to
repentance. The apostle is addressing the “O man” of verses 1 and 3, and “man”
here cannot be understood as an individual, for then the text would be saying
of the same man that God’s goodness leads him to repentance, while that very
man does not know this, despises that goodness, and gathers to himself
treasures of wrath. This is impossible. If God’s goodness leads a man to
repentance, that man does not despise that goodness. And, if a man despises the
goodness of God, surely that goodness of God does not lead him to repentance.
We must, therefore, understand “man” as a class, collectively. It is true that
the goodness of God leads man, that is, elect man, to repentance. It is also
true that man despises the goodness of God and gathers for himself treasures of
wrath, not knowing that the goodness of God leads man to repentance. This is
true of the ungodly, reprobate man.
-------------------------------------------------
(VI)
Rev. Martyn McGeown
Within the “O man …” of verse 4, there are two
distinct individuals. The text addresses the “O man …” organically and individually. Both are addressed in
the 2nd person singular (“thou”/“thee”), but both are very different from one
another. (MM, 25/06/2015)
-------------------------------------------------
(VII)
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
[Source:
The Two Wills of God: Does God Really Have Two Wills?
(Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2005), p. 175]
There are two types of people being regarded in
verse 4. The first are those which the goodness of God leads to repentance. The
force of the Greek construction concludes for us that when the goodness of God
is exhibited in this way by special revelation, people are saved. Special
revelation, even in the Torah, never comes back to God void. But there are also
those who store up wrath, a different company of men than in the first part of
the verse. The duality of God’s design here is seen. Some are shown the
goodness of God in special revelation and are led to repentance. Others store
up wrath for the Day of Judgment. The dichotomy of classes must be made, or the
verse becomes obscure and does not make sense.
---------------------------------------
(VIII)
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)
[Source:
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church (Buffalo: The
Christian Literature Company, 1887), p. 264]
Now
even penance itself, when by the law of the Church there is sufficient reason
for its being gone through, is frequently evaded through infirmity; for shame
is the fear of losing pleasure when the good opinion of men gives more pleasure
than the righteousness which leads a man to humble himself in penitence. Wherefore
the mercy of God is necessary not only when a man repents, but even to lead him
to repent. How else explain what the apostle says of certain persons:
“if God peradventure will give them repentance”? And before Peter wept
bitterly, we are told by the evangelist, “The Lord turned, and looked upon
him.”
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment