For they are a nation void of
counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would
consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put
ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut
them up? (Deut. 32:28-30 KJV).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
This text is
used to support the doctrine of a general, well-meant offer of grace and
salvation on the part of God to all men, including the reprobate, and also the
notion that God, in Himself, has an unfulfilled or ineffectual desire, will,
wish and want for something to have occurred that didn’t—inferred from the
first two words, “O that …”
(I)
Rev.
Matthew Winzer
[Source: “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review,” in The
Blue Banner, vol. 9, issues 10-12
(October/December 2000).]
“O that there were such an heart in them, that they
would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with
them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut. 5:29). “O that they were
wise, that they understood this, that they
would consider their latter end!” (Deut. 32:29). “Oh that my people had
hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” (Ps.
81:13). “O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace
been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea” (Isa. 48:18).
“The purpose of adducing these texts is to note the
optative force of that which is expressed;”33 and the subsequent
burden of the report’s exegesis of these texts is to show the validity of the A.V.
rendering of them in the optative mood. As there are good grounds for accepting
this rendering, there is no need to give a detailed analysis of the exegesis.
It is the conclusion being drawn from the rendering which is pertinent to this
review. That conclusion is stated thus: “there can be no room for question but
that the Lord represents himself in some of these passages as earnestly
desiring the fulfilment of something which he had not in the exercise of his
sovereign will actually decreed to come to pass.”34
It is undoubtedly true that the Lord represents
Himself in this manner. The question is, what is the nature of this
representation? Prof. Murray did not offer any comment by way of substantiating
a literal interpretation of the wording of these texts. Which is somewhat
disappointing in view of the fact that John Calvin understood three of these
four texts to be God speaking “after the manner of men.” As his comments
pertinently state the case for a figurative interpretation of the wording, it might
be appropriate to quote these in answer to the report’s assertion that these
texts bear upon the point at issue.
In a sermon on Deuteronomy 5:29, he says: “God
therefore to make the people perceive how hard a matter it is to keepe the
lawe, sayeth here, I would fayne it were so ... True it is that here God
speaketh after the maner of men: for he needeth no more but wish things done,
all things are in his hand.” And a little later on the same text, “And why then
doth he pretend to wish it in this text? It is bicause he speaketh after the
maner of men, as he doeth in many other places. And (as I said afore) it is to
the ende that when there is any mention made of walking in obedience to
Godward, we should understand that it cannot bee done without hardnesse, and
that our wits should be wakened to apply our selves earnestly to that studie.”35
On Psalm 81:13, he comments “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.”36 Similarly, on Isa. 48:18, “This is
therefore a figurative appropriation of human affections.”37
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.
---------------
FOOTNOTES:
34. Collected Writings of John
Murray, Volume 4 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), p. 119.
35. John Calvin, Sermons on
Deuteronomy, Facsimile of 1583 edition (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987),
p. 260.
36. John Calvin, ‘Commentary upon the Book of Psalms,’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 5 (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 2:323.
37. John Calvin, ‘Commentary on Isaiah,’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 8 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1989), 1:487.
38. David Dickson, Commentary on
the Psalms (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), p. 57.
----------------------------------------------
(II)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment