"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil (Luke 6:35 KJV).
(I)
Prof. David J. Engelsma
(Source: Common Grace Revisited
[Grandville, MI: RFPA, 2003], pp. 18–24)
This is a text that
has played a prominent role in the controversy over common grace in Reformed
circles. Defenders of common grace have always appealed to it as one of the
clearest, most powerful proofs of a favor of God to the reprobate wicked. . . .
[Defenders of common grace are] certainly right when [they insist] that the
text requires believers to love their unbelieving enemies. For all we know,
they may be reprobates. They hate us, curse us, and persecute us. They are our
enemies on account of our confession of Christ. They need our prayers, that
they be converted and saved. . . . That we must love our neighbor, whether
Christian or non-Christian, is not the issue. The question is: Does God love
His reprobate enemies? Specifically, the question is: Are the unthankful and
evil who are the objects of God's kindness in Luke 6:35 reprobate persons?
Defenders of common
grace assume that the unthankful and evil who are the objects of God's
kindness in Luke 6:35 are all men without exception, thus including
those whom He reprobated. Assuming this, they do not bother carefully to
explain the last part of Luke 6:35 in the light of its context. It is
enough that they cite it. But this begs the question. All agree that God is
kind to unthankful and evil people. What needs to be proved is that God is kind
to all humans who are unthankful and evil. More specifically,
what needs to be proved is that God is kind to unthankful and evil reprobates.
What Manner of Kindness?
Plainly, Luke
6:35 cannot bear the interpretation given it by the defenders of common
grace. This interpretation is that God is kind to reprobate unthankful and evil
men with a non-saving, common grace kindness. […] God's kindness in Luke
6:35 is [said to be] a "positive, albeit non-salvific, regard for
those who are not elect." But the text teaches the saving grace,
or kindness, of God toward unthankful and evil people. The word that is
translated "kind" is the Greek word chreestos (χρηστός). This word is
used of God elsewhere in the New Testament in I Peter 2:3 and in Romans
2:4. In I Peter 2:3, where the King James Version translates the word as
"gracious," the word refers to God's kindness in saving His elect.
"As newborn babes," regenerated believers are to desire the sincere
milk of the Word, "if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (Greek: chreestos)." In Romans
2:4, the King James Version translates chreestos as
"goodness": "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance?" Inasmuch as this goodness, or kindness,
of God leads one to repentance, it is a saving kindness, not a
common grace kindness.
The one use of the
word to describe the attitude of the saints likewise shows kindness to be a
saving perfection. Ephesians 4:32 exhorts church members to be "kind one
to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake
hath forgiven you." The expression of kindness is forgiveness of sins.
If the unthankful
and evil in Luke 6:35 are reprobate men and women, the text teaches
that God is kind to them with a saving kindness, or grace. He
saves these unthankful and evil people, leading them to repentance and
forgiving their sins.
That the kindness of
verse 35 is saving grace, not a
common grace kindness, is established by verse 36: "Be ye therefore
merciful, as your Father also is merciful." In the love and kindness that
we must show to our enemies, we are to be merciful. Our mercy reflects the
mercy of our Father. Although the objects of our Father's mercy are not
explicitly stated in verse 36, there can be no doubt that they are the same
unthankful and evil persons who are mentioned in verse 35. God is merciful to
the same persons to whom He is kind, and His mercy is the supreme manifestation
of His kindness. But the divine mercy is such a pity of God toward sinners as
yearns to deliver them from their sins and from the misery of their sins. Mercy
is not a mere desire to give a wretched sinner some rain on his corn field, or
a pork chop on his plate, or even a happy marriage.
If the unthankful
and evil of Luke 6:35 are all humans without exception, including
especially the reprobate, the text teaches far too much for the defenders of
common grace. It does not teach a meager "positive, albeit non-salvific,
regard for those who are not elect." It teaches a robust kindness that
wills to save them. It teaches a pity toward them that yearns to redeem them.
This understanding
of the kindness of God in Luke 6:35 is demanded by the preceding
context, verses 27ff. There is a relation between our love for our neighbors
and God's love for the unthankful and evil. Our love reflects His love:
"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is
merciful" (v. 36). Like Father, like children: "But love ye your
enemies … and ye shall be the children of the Highest" (v.
35). In our love for our enemies, we are to pray for them, that is, pray for
their salvation: "Pray for them which despitefully use you" (v. 28).
This implies a sincere desire on our part for their repentance and salvation.
If now the kindness of God that we reflect is a kindness toward all without
exception, including reprobate men and women, God too must sincerely desire the
repentance and salvation of all without exception. But such a kindness, or
grace, is not common grace, "a non-salvific regard for those who are not
elect." It is saving grace.
Who Are the Unthankful and Evil?
Scripture denies
that God is kind and merciful to unthankful and evil reprobates, having
compassion on them in their misery, willing their salvation, leading them to
repentance, and forgiving their sins: "For he saith to Moses, I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion…. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he
will he hardeneth" (Rom. 9:15, 18). Scripture teaches that the Christ of
God, carrying out the will of God who sent Him, refused to pray for all men without
exception. Thus, He showed that He did not sincerely desire the salvation of
all without exception. He prayed only for those whom the Father had given Him
out of the world. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them
which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9).
The meaning of Luke
6:35 is that we Christians are to love our neighbors, including our
enemies. These enemies are unbelievers, non-Christians, who are hostile toward
us because of our confession and discipleship of Christ. They may well be
reprobate enemies, although we hope that our prayers and kind behavior may be
useful to win them to Christ.
In loving our
enemies, we reflect the character of our Father. Like Father, like children.
For God is kind to unthankful and evil people. He is not kind to all unthankful
and evil people. Nor does Luke 6:35 say this. But He is kind to
people who are unthankful and evil. These are the elect in Christ, "the
children of the Highest," who now are called and privileged to show the
marvelous goodness of their heavenly Father in their own attitude and behavior
toward their enemies.
We were the
unthankful and evil when in kindness He set His love upon us in the eternal
decree of election.
We were the
unthankful and evil when in kindness He gave up His own Son for us in the
redeeming death of the cross.
We were the
unthankful and evil when in kindness He translated us by the regenerating
Spirit into the kingdom of His dear Son.
And still we are the
unthankful and evil when daily, in kindness, He brings us to repentance,
forgives our sins, preserves us in the faith, and shows us a fatherly face in
Jesus Christ. For, although by His grace we are also thankful and holy, we have
only a very small beginning of this thankfulness and holiness. How unthankful
we are for the love of God to us in Jesus Christ! And this is evil! This is a
great evil!
[Luke 6:35] does not
teach a common grace of God. It teaches a saving kindness of God. If the
unthankful and evil in the text are all humans without exception, the text
teaches that the saving grace of God is universal, a doctrine that the rest of
Scripture denies, a doctrine that the Reformed confessions condemn, and a
doctrine that [all Calvinists] repudiate.
Since this is a text
that all defenders of common grace thoughtlessly appeal to, others as well, it
may be hoped, will now reconsider their use of it in defense of common grace
and, perhaps, their defense of common grace itself.
A Particular "Common Grace"
I idly wonder
whether the defenders of common grace ever recognize that their interpretation
of Luke 6:35 fails even on the assumptions of the theory of common
grace. Suppose that the kindness of the text is a common grace kindness of God.
In this imaginary case, God's kindness is His loving desire to give everybody a
comfortable physical life, nice material things, and earthly happiness, as well
as His actual bestowal of all this upon everybody.
God is not kind in
this way to all unthankful and evil people. What about the millions of children
born into poverty, famine, sickness, and abuse? What about the hundreds of
thousands born with dreadful handicaps of body and mind? What about the
millions wracked with pain, crushed with burdens, broken with disappointments,
desolate with despair, terrified by fears, destroyed by war?
Is God kind with a
common grace kindness to all unthankful and evil people? Is He thus kind even
to most unthankful and evil people?
I do not see it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(II)
Rev. Martyn McGeown
[Source: British Reformed Journal,
Issue No. 63, Autumn/Winter 2016]
The kindness in Luke
6:35 is, and can only be, a saving kindness. There is no other kindness in God.
God’s kindness is infinitely more than God being “nice” to people. Kindness is
God’s gentleness, His careful handling of His delicate precious people. God is
not kind to the reprobate. He breaks them with a rod of iron and He dashes them
in pieces as a potter’s vessel (Ps. 2:9). God’s kindness is called goodness or
graciousness in other passages and is only ever directed toward the elect (Rom.
11:22; I Pet. 2:3). This kindness is shown to the unthankful and to the evil,
to us; we who believe in Jesus Christ are the unthankful and
the evil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(III)
Prof. Herman Hanko
[Source: Common Grace Considered, pp.
87–88—available to read online]
[The] reference to the unthankful and evil is.
. . . a reference to the unthankful and evil elect. Election is not based on
works, but on the free and sovereign choice of God. Those who are eternally
chosen are not chosen because of any good they did, nor because something was
found in them that made them suitable to be counted among the elect. They were
as evil as any in the world. They were as ungrateful for God’s good gifts as
anyone elsewhere. They were as deserving of everlasting condemnation as those
who were not chosen. But they are in any case, citizens of the kingdom of
heaven, and Jesus is giving them the principles by which the citizens of the
kingdom live here in the world.
The elect who are the objects of God’s mercy
know with total certainty that they were not chosen because they were in any
way better than those not chosen. The awesome character of election and its
sovereign work of God is the reason for the humility of God’s people. How can
it be any different? It is not at all strange, therefore, that these people are
admonished to be merciful to others. They are eager to love their enemies, do
good, and lend, hoping for nothing again. They cannot help but be themselves
kind unto the unthankful and evil, for this is the way God dealt with them.
There is no reason at all in the text to argue,
as those who teach common grace argue, that God is merciful to all men. After
all, Jesus is speaking here to His own disciples (verse 20) and is describing
the characteristics and calling of those who belong to the kingdom of heaven.
Citizens of the kingdom of heaven are saved by grace; they are now to be
gracious to those with whom they come into contact. In this way they manifest
to others the grace God has shown to them. What could be more obvious?
To argue that because within the sphere of the
kingdom of heaven, God is kind to unthankful and evil people can never be
reason why we conclude that God is gracious to all men. One ought to re-read
Psalm 73 and Proverbs 3:33 if he has any problem with this explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
Rev. Herman Hoeksema
[Source: God’s Goodness AlwaysParticular]
The questions arise
at once: Who are these enemies to whom God is merciful and kind? What is meant
by the kindness of God? To these questions [the defender of common grace]
immediately replies, “All unthankful
and evil are mentioned in one breath in the text. The text does not distinguish
between elect and reprobate. God’s kindness is nonsaving grace and therefore
refers to God’s common grace. He is kind to all the unthankful and evil.” […] The
text does not speak of all the
unthankful and evil. Nor must we be too hasty to argue that it speaks of
unthankful and evil without further limitation and that, therefore, all the unthankful and evil are meant. [To use this method of reasoning] is a very
dangerous method. Apart from the fact that such an interpretation does not
consider at all the current teaching of scripture concerning God’s attitude
toward the reprobate ungodly, it is quite improper to read Luke 6:35 as if it referred
to all the ungodly, merely on the basis that they are not further defined. If
this method of interpretation were sound in this instance, it certainly must be
applied in all other cases. That is, wherever the Bible speaks of the ungodly
without any limitation, we must insert the word all. If we would apply this method to similar passages of the word
of God, we would conclude that the Arminian doctrine that Christ died for all
men is correct.
[The defender of
common grace often argues against our exegesis thus:]
“It must be clear to anyone who is not controlled by prejudice that we
have to do here with the worst example of perverting scripture. This is no explanation
of the words of Jesus, but an induction of one’s notions into the text.
Arbitrarily something that is not contained in the text is inserted. For the
text does not say that God shows kindness to those who formerly were unthankful and evil, but are now converted from their
unthankfulness and wickedness. Nor do we read here that God is kind to those
who still are unthankful and evil, but will be converted from their
unthankfulness and wickedness in the future. This is made of the text, but it
does not say this. This arbitrary, high-handed exegesis is the result of
dogmatic prejudice.”
[…] The error and
danger of this exegetical method, which refuses to interpret scripture in its
own light and is satisfied with explaining each individual text by itself,
become apparent when we apply it to other parts of Holy Writ. Just apply it to
Romans 5:6: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for
the ungodly.” The result is that you will reason as follows: The text says that
Christ died for the ungodly. It does not say that Christ died for those who formerly were ungodly, but now are no
longer ungodly. Neither does the text teach that Christ died for those who at
that time were still ungodly, but would be converted from their ungodliness.
The text speaks wholly in general of “the ungodly.” Therefore, one has no right
to insert the world elect into the
text. One who limits the text to the elect ungodly is guilty of perverting the
word of God, for the passage teaches clearly that Christ died for all the ungodly.
We know very well
that in this case [our Reformed brethren] would not reason thus. [They] would
not apply the same method to interpret Romans 5:6 that [they follow] in [their]
explanation of Luke 6:35. [They] would object that the word of God elsewhere
teaches plainly that Christ did not die for all men but only for the elect;
that we must remember this in the interpretation of Romans 5:6; and that the
true interpretation of the Romans passage cannot be that Christ died for all
men.
But this is
arbitrary. You cannot apply two completely different methods of interpretation
to scripture. Yet this is precisely what [the defender of common grace] does. If
we would follow the same method to interpret Luke 6:35 that [they] admit is the
correct method with application to Romans 5:6, [they] would suddenly about-face
and brand that method as a perversion of scripture and the result of dogmatic
prejudice. Then [they] would deny us the right to limit the unthankful and evil
to the elect only, although there is nothing in the text or context that
forbids such an interpretation, and it harmonizes with the correct teaching of
the word of God throughout. Then [our brethren] would not hesitate to insert
the word all into the text.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(V)
Rev. George Martin Ophoff
“What is there that tells the expositor how a term or the
terms of any one text should be construed? And the answer: the surroundings of
a text. Now, when the Reformed exegete speaks of the surroundings of any one
text he has in mind not only the near but the far surroundings as well. To the
Reformed exegete the entire Scripture must be regarded as the surroundings of
any one text in virtue of the fact that the word of God in its entirety is one
organical whole. The expositor must regard his text as an integral part, not only
of the chapter from which it is taken; not only of the book or epistle in which
it appears, but of the sixty-six books comprising the Bible. The renderings of
him whose method is not as that described above, are absolutely worthless” (The Standard Bearer, 15 May, 1926, vol.
2).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(VI)
More to come! (DV)
For further reading:
Join our discussion fellowship group!
No comments:
Post a Comment